critical success factors of project management for brunei … · critical success factors of...
TRANSCRIPT
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FOR BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: IMPROVING
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Rohaniyati Salleh
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
Principal Supervisor:
Professor Stephen Kajewski
Associate Supervisor:
Professor Jay Yang
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
2009
i
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
DECLARATION
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a
degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signed: _________________
Date: _________________
ii
This research is dedicated to all the people who inspired, supported and
encouraged me
“To my late father, late sisters and late brother, May Allah have mercy on
them”
“To my mother, thank you for her love and support”
“To my husband, thank you for his inexhaustible support and
encouragement”
“To my brothers and sisters, thank you for their continuous support”
“To my children, I hope this will inspire them to pursue their education and
lead successful lives”
“To my friends and colleagues, thank you, thank you and thank you”
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
These acknowledgements attempt to thank people who in some way
supported, guided, and encouraged me along the way to completing this
dissertation. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following
people. Without their assistance, encouragement, suggestions and
commitment this dissertation would not have been a reality.
Firstly, from the depth of my heart I would like to express sincere gratitude
and appreciation to my principal supervisor Professor Stephen Kajewski for
his continued support, generous academic advice, discussions, suggestions,
close attention, encouragement and his incredible understanding and
capability to initiate guidelines without being overbearing. Also I would like to
thank my associate supervisor Professor Jay Yang, for his comments and
support. As well, I would like to thank all the staff in the School of Urban and
Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Queensland
University of Technology for their most welcoming support and friendly
environment.
I would like also to express gratitude to all my friends and colleagues in
Brunei for their enormous help in collecting the surveys and their participation
in the questionnaires. Sincere gratitude and appreciation goes to all owners,
contractors and engineers who participated in this research. A special thanks
to the panel of experts for their contribution and valuable opinion.
Finally, to my family, a very special thank you for all their sacrifices, patience,
love and support throughout my research studies.
iv
ABSTRACT
The problem of delays in the construction industry is a global phenomenon
and the construction industry in Brunei Darussalam is no exception. The goal
of all parties involved in construction projects – owners, contractors,
engineers and consultants in either the public or private sector is to
successfully complete the project on schedule, within planned budget, with
the highest quality and in the safest manner. Construction projects are
frequently influenced by either success factors that help project parties reach
their goal as planned, or delay factors that stifle or postpone project
completion.
The purpose of this research is to identify success and delay factors which
can help project parties reach their intended goals with greater efficiency.
This research extracted seven of the most important success factors
according to the literature and seven of the most important delay factors
identified by project parties, and then examined correlations between them to
determine which were the most influential in preventing project delays.
This research uses a comprehensive literature review to design and conduct
a survey to investigate success and delay factors and then obtain a
consensus of expert opinion using the Delphi methodology to rank the most
needed critical success factors for Brunei construction projects. A specific
survey was distributed to owners, contractors and engineers to examine the
most critical delay factors. A general survey was distributed to examine the
correlation between the identified delay factors and the seven most important
critical success factors selected. A consensus of expert opinion using the
Delphi methodology was used to rank the most needed critical success
factors for Brunei building construction.
v
Data was collected and evaluated by statistical methods to identify the most
significant causes of delay and to measure the strength and direction of the
relationship between critical success factors and delay factors in order to
examine project parties’ evaluation of projects’ critical success and delay
factors, and to evaluate the influence of critical success factors on critical
delay factors.
A relative importance index has been used to determine the relative
importance of the various causes of delays. A one and two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) has been used to examine how the group or groups
evaluated the influence of the critical success factors in avoiding or
preventing each of the delay factors, and which success factors were
perceived as most influential in avoiding or preventing critical delay factors.
Finally the Delphi method, using consensus from an expert panel, was
employed to identify the seven most critical success factors used to avoid the
delay factors, and thereby improve project performance.
vi
CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP i
ABSTRACT iv
CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES xviii
LIST OF FIGURES xxiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the research 1
1.2 Research Objectives 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Justification of the research 6
1.5 Research Methodology 7
1.6 Outline of the Research 7
CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 10
2.1 Construction Industry in Developing Countries 10
vii
2.2 Difficulties faced by Construction Industries in Developing
Countries. 11
2.3 Brunei Construction Industry 16
2.3.1 Introduction to Brunei 16
2.3.2 Brunei Construction Industry 19
2.4 Construction Classification: Brunei Construction Industry 26
2.5 Project Parties: Brunei Construction Projects 27
2.6 Project Development: Brunei Construction Industry 28
2.7 Common problems: Brunei construction Industry 29
2.7.1 Owners 29
2.7.2 Designers 29
2.7.3 Consultants 30
2.7.4 Contractors 31
2.7.5 Construction resource suppliers 31
2.7.6 Other sources 32
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW INTO PROJECT SUCCESS
FACTORS AND DELAY FACTORS 35
3.1 Delay factors 35
viii
3.1.1 Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry 37
3.1.2 Causes of Delay in Large Construction Industries 39
3.1.3 Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction
Projects 40
3.1.4 Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis 44
3.1.5 A comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns 46
3.1.6 Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional Contract 49
3.2 Success Factors 50
3.2.1 Determinants of Construction Project Success 51
3.2.2 Critical Success Factors for Construction Projects 54
3.2.3 Checklist of Critical Success Factors for Building Projects 56
3.2.4 Critical Success Factors for Different Project Objectives 58
3.2.5 Critical Success Factors in the Construction Process 59
3.2.6 Critical Success Factors over stages of the Project Life
Cycle 63
3.3 Conclusion 64
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 67
4.1 Research Strategy 67
ix
4.2 The Survey Strategy 71
4.3 Consensus forming techniques 74
4.3.1 Interacting group process 74
4.3.2 The nominal group process 75
4.3.3 The Delphi process 76
4.3.4 Comparison of the Different Processes 82
4.4 The Delphi technique – Ranking the critical success factors 83
4.5 The Research Procedure 86
4.5.1 Stage (1): Review literature 87
4.5.2 Stage (2): Data collection, survey of the local building
construction project and analysis 87
4.5.3 Stage (3): Ranking and validating 89
CHAPTER 5 DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND
STATISTICS: STAGE (2) DELAY FACTOR 92
5.1 Research Question One 93
5.2 Sampling and Target Population 96
5.3 Survey Procedure 97
5.4 Statistical Method 98
x
5.4.1 Relative importance Index 98
5.4.2 Spearman Rank correlation 99
5.5 Analysis Procedure 101
5.6 Research Findings and Results 101
5.7 Analysis of Data 102
5.7.1 Causes of Delay 103
5.7.2 Discussion of Results 105
5.8 Conclusion 109
5.8.1 Lack of Communication between Parties 111
5.8.2 Slow Decision Making 112
5.8.3 Change Orders 112
5.8.4 Contractor’s Inadequate Planning 113
5.8.5 Finance and Payment of Completed Work 113
5.8.6 Subcontractor 114
5.8.7 Inadequate Contractor Experience 114
xi
CHAPTER 6 DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
STAGE (3) CORRELATION OF DELAY FACTORS
AND SUCCESS FACTOR
115
6.1 Survey Structure 116
6.2 Statistical Methods 118
6.2.1 Pearson Correlation Coefficient 119
6.2.2 Independent t test 119
6.2.3 One-Way ANOVA 120
6.2.4 Two-Way ANOVA 121
6.3 Analysis Procedures 123
6.4 Results and Analysis 124
6.4.1 Participant characteristic 124
6.4.2 Project information 124
6.4.3 Owners’ characteristic 125
6.4.4 Contractors’ Characteristics 125
6.4.5 Engineers’ Characteristics 126
6.5 Research question two 126
xii
6.5.1 Research question 2(I) 127
6.5.1.1 Owners 127
6.5.1.2 Contractors 128
6.5.1.3 Engineers 130
6.5.1.4 Conclusion 130
6.5.2 Research Question 2(II) 131
6.5.2.1 Owners and contractors 131
6.5.2.2 Owners and engineers 134
6.5.2.3 Contractors and engineers 137
6.5.2.4 Conclusion 139
6.5.3 Research Question 2(III): Individual 141
6.5.3.1 Owners 142
6.5.3.2 Contractors 146
6.5.3.3 Engineers 149
6.5.3.4 Conclusion 153
6.5.4 Research Question 2(III): Combined Groups 156
xiii
6.5.4.1 Owners and Contractors 157
6.5.4.2 Contractors and Engineer 165
6.5.4.3 Owners and Engineers 169
6.5.4.4 Owners, Contractors and Engineers 176
6.5.4.5 Conclusion 183
6.5.5 Overall Ranking 184
CHAPTER 7 THE DELPHI METHOD STAGE 3: RANKING THE
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS 188
7.1 The Delphi Methodology : Ranking the critical success factors
for Brunei construction projects 189
7.2 Tabulation of the First Round Responses 192
7.3 Tabulation and Ranking of Responses from Round Two 193
7.4 Conclusion 194
CHAPTER 8 RESEARCH CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 198
8.1 Summary of Data collection 198
8.1.1 Critical delay factors in Brunei building construction 198
8.1.2 Relationship between critical success and delay factors
(Pearson correlation) 199
xiv
8.1.3 Perception of influence of success factors on each delay
factor (t-tests of owners, contractors and engineers’
responses)
200
8.1.4 Ranking of critical success factors influence on critical
delay factors (One and Two-way ANOVA) 201
8.1.5 Overall importance of success factors (Importance index) 203
8.1.6 Delphi technique (Ranking from expert panel) 204
8.2 Study Conclusion 205
8.3 Limitation to Research 208
8.4 Contribution of the Research
209
8.5 Recommendation for Future Research 210
REFERENCES 212
APPENDICES 231
Appendix A – Gross Domestic Product By Economic Activity 231
Appendix A1 – Gross Domestic Product Average Annual Growth Rates
By Kind of Economic Activity during RKN6, RKN7 and
RKN8
231
Appendix A2 – Gross Domestic Product by Kind of Economic Activity at
Current and Constant Prices, 2000 – 2005 Brunei 232
xv
Appendix A3 – Percent Distribution of Gross Domestic Product by Kind
of Economic Activity at Current and Constant Prices,
2000 – 2005 Brunei Darussalam
233
Appendix B – t Test success factors and delay factors 234
Appendix B1 – t Test Owners and Contractors - Success Factors 234
Appendix B2 – t Test Owners and Contractors – Delay Factors 234
Appendix B3 – t Test Owners and Engineers – Success Factors 235
Appendix B4 – t Test Owners and Engineers – Delay Factors 235
Appendix B5 – t Test Contractor and Engineer - Success Factors 235
Appendix B6 – t Test Contractors and Engineers – Delay Factors 236
Appendix C – t Test critical success factors on critical delay factors 237
Appendix C1 – Owners and Contractors t test – CSFs on CDFs 237
Appendix C2 – Contractor and Engineers –t Test CSFs on CDFs 240
Appendix C3 – Owner and Engineer –t Test CSFs on CDFs 240
Appendix D – One-Way ANOVA Result 248
Appendix D1 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners 248
Appendix D2 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Owners 249
xvi
Appendix D3 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners (Post – Hoc) 249
Appendix D4 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors 250
Appendix D5 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Contractors 251
Appendix D6 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors (Post – Hoc) 251
Appendix D7 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers
252
Appendix D8 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Engineers 253
Appendix D9 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers (Post – Hoc) 258
Appendix E – Two-Way ANOVA
256
Appendix E1 – Two-way ANOVA-Owner and Contractor 256
Appendix E2 – Owners and Contractors – Main effects – Calculation 258
Appendix E3 – Owners and Contractors – Post Hoc 260
Appendix E4 – Contractor and Engineer 261
Appendix E5 – Contractors and Engineers – Main effects – Calculation 263
Appendix E6 – Contractors and Engineers – Post Hoc 265
Appendix E7 – Owner and Engineer 266
Appendix E8 – Owners and Engineers – Main effects – Calculation 269
xvii
Appendix E9 – Owner and Engineers – Post Hoc 271
Appendix E10 – Owner, Contractor and Engineer 272
Appendix E11 – Owners , Contractors and Engineers – Main effects –
Calculation 275
Appendix E12 – Owners, Contractors and Engineers – Post Hoc 276
Appendix F Relative Importance of the Success Factors 278
Appendix F1 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners 278
Appendix F2 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractor 278
Appendix F3 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineer 278
Appendix F4 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner and Contractor 279
Appendix F5 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Contractor and Engineer 279
Appendix F6 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner and Engineer 279
Appendix F7 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner, Contractor and
Engineer 279
Appendix G Survey Questionnaire – Delay factors 280
Appendix H Survey questionnaire – Examine correlation of critical
success factors and delay factors 285
Appendix I Delphi questionnaire 301
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Status of RKN8 by Category of Project 23
Table 2.2 Financial Status of RKN8 – Expenditure (BND million) 24
Table 2.3 Construction Project Parties’ Roles 28
Table 3.1 Delay Factors in Order of Importance 38
Table 3.2 List of Causes of Delay Categorised into Nine Groups 41
Table 3.3 Most Important Delay Factors According to Contractors 43
Table 3.4 Most Important Delay Factors According to Architectural Engineers
43
Table 3.5 Most Important Delay Factors According to Owners 44
Table 3.6 Summary of the Investigated Project Frequency of Delay
45
Table 3.7 Respondents’ Rankings of Significant Delay Factors ( A Comparative Study of Causes of Overruns)
48
Table 3.8 Relative Index and Ranking of Delay Factor (Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional Contract)
49
Table 3.9 Factors Affecting the Success of Construction Project 54
Table 3.10 Critical Success Factors for Different Project Objectives 59
Table 4.1 Relevant Situations for Different Research Strategies 71
xix
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristic of the Respondent 102
Table 5.2 Ranking Causes of Delay (Based on overall) 103
Table 5.3 Causes of Delays (Owners, Contractors and Engineers) 104
Table 5.4 Spearman Correlation (Owner, Contractor and Engineer)
105
Table 5.5 Summary Results of Critical Delay Factors 110
Table 6.1 Critical Success Factors and Critical Delay Factors 116
Table 6.2 One-Way ANOVA Equations 121
Table 6.3 Two-Way ANOVA General Equations 122
Table 6.4 Research Question 2 (I, II, & III) 126
Table 6.5 Correlation Coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Owners
128
Table 6.6 Correlation Coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Contractors
129
Table 6.7 Correlation Coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Engineers
130
Table 6.8 t-tests – Critical Success Factors (Owners and Contractors)
132
Table 6.9 t-tests – Critical Delay Factors (Owners and Contractors)
132
Table 6.10 t-tests – Influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors (Owners and Contractors)
133
Table 6.11 t-tests – Critical Success Factors (Owners and Engineers)
134
xx
Table 6.12 t-tests – Critical Delay Factors (Owners and Engineers) 135
Table 6.13 t-tests – Influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors (Owners and Engineers)
136
Table 6.14 t-tests – Critical Success Factors (Contractors and Engineers)
137
Table 6.15 t-tests – Critical Delay Factors (Contractors and Engineers)
138
Table 6.16 t-tests – Influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors (Contractors and Engineers)
139
Table 6.17 One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners 143
Table 6.18 One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Owners 144
Table 6.19 One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners (Post-Hoc) 145
Table 6.20 One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors 146
Table 6.21 One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Contractors 147
Table 6.22 One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors (Post-Hoc) 148
Table 6.23 One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers 149
Table 6.24 One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Engineers 150
Table 6.25 One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers (Post-Hoc) 151
Table 6.26 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners and Contractors
158
Table 6.27 Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owners and Contractors 159
xxi
Table 6.28 Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) 160
Table 6.28a Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) - D2 160
Table 6.28b Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) - D3 161
Table 6.28c Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) – D5 161
Table 6.28d Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) – D6 162
Table 6.28e Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors) – D7 162
Table 6.29 Group Interaction (Owners and Contractors) – D2 164
Table 6.29a Group Interaction (Owners and Contractors) – D4 164
Table 6.29b Group Interaction (Owners and Contractors) – D7 165
Table 6.30 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results for Contractors and Engineers
165
Table 6.31 Two-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors and Engineers
166
Table 6.32 Group main Effect (Contractors and Engineers) 167
Table 6.32a Group main Effect (Contractors and Engineers) – D1 167
Table 6.32b Group main Effect (Contractors and Engineers) – D3 168
Table 6.33 Group Interaction D4 & D7 (Contractors and Engineers) 169
Table 6.33a Group Interaction in D7 (Inadequate Contractor Experience)
170
xxii
Table 6.34 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners and Engineers
170
Table 6.35 Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owners and Engineers 171
Table 6.36 Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) 172
Table 6.36a Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) – D1 172
Table 6.36b Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) - D2 173
Table 6.36c Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) – D3 173
Table 6.36d Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) – D4 174
Table 6.36e Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) – D6 174
Table 6.36f Group Main Effect (Owners and Engineers) – D7 175
Table 6.37 Group Interaction D4 (Owners and Engineers) 176
Table 6.38 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners, Contractors and Engineers
176
Table 6.39 Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owners, Contractors and Engineers
177
Table 6.40 Group Main Effect (Owners, Contractors & Engineers) 178
Table 6.40a Group Main Effect on D1 (Lack of communication) 179
Table 6.40b Group Main Effect on D2 (Slow decision making) 179
Table 6.40c Group Main Effect on D3 (Change orders) 180
xxiii
Table 6.40d Group Main Effect on D6 (Subcontractors) 170
Table 6.40e Group Main Effect on D7 (Inadequate contractor experience)
181
Table 6.41 Interaction (Owners, Contractors and Engineers) -D4 (Inadequate contractor planning)
182
Table 6.41a Interaction (Owners, Contractors and Engineers) -D7 (Inadequate contractor experience)
182
Table 6.42 One-Way ANOVA Summary Result for Owners Ranking 185
Table 6.43 Success Factor One in Owner Case 186
Table 6.44 Group Overall Perceived Success Factors’ Importance 186
Table 7.1 Results of Study of Critical Success Factors for Critical Delay Factors
188
Table 7.2 Delphi First Round 193
Table 7.3 Delphi Final Ranking 194
xxiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Location of Brunei Map of South East Asia 16
Figure 2.2 Map of Brunei Darussalam by District 17
Figure 2.3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth Rate 2001 – 2005
20
Figure 2.4 Ministry of Development Organization 22
Figure 2.5 Total Allocation of RKN8 by Sectors 23
Figure 2.6 Actual Development Expenditure of RKN8 by Sectors 24
Figure 3.1 Problems Causing Delays in Construction Projects 39
Figure 4.1 The Empirical Scientific Research Cycle 68
Figure 4.2 Empirical Research Strategies 69
Figure 4.3 Research Procedure 86
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
An examination of the relevant recent literature indicates that construction
projects are frequently completed with large cost overruns, extended
schedules and quality concerns. Delay is defined as the time overruns either
beyond the completion date specified in the contract, or beyond the date that
the parties agreed upon for delivery of the project. A delay in a construction
project may cause losses, or negatively affect some or all of the project
parties. The effects of delay may include time overrun, cost overrun,
disputes, arbitration, litigation, and total abandonment (Aibinu and Jagboro ,
2002; Manavazhi and Adhikari, 2002; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 2002; Murali
and Yau, 2006). Some studies directly examine delays and attempt to identify
their causes as well as ways to avoid them (Baldwin, 1971; Assaf et al, 1995;
Al-Ghaffy, 1995; Ongulana and Pramkuntong; Chan and Kumaraswamy,
1997; Odeyinka and Yusuf; Mansfield; Kaming et al, 1997; Al-Momani, 2000;
Frimpong et al; Assaf and Al-hejji; Odeh Bettaineh, 2002).
During the last four decades a number of studies have investigated factors
which aid successful completion of projects, particularly those which affect
project success more than others (Martin, 1976; Locke, 1984); Cleland and
King, 1983; Sayles and Chandler, 1971; Baker et.al, 1983 Pinto and Slevin,
1989; and Morris and Hough, 1987). “Critical success factors thus are, for
any business, the limited number of areas in which results, if they are
satisfactory, will ensure competitive performance” Rockart, (1982, p4).
The concept of success in a construction project can, according to some
researchers be evaluated only when the evaluation dimensions are
adequately defined (Baker et.al, 1983; Slevin and Pinto, 1986; Morris and
Hough, 1987, and Turner 1993). Generally, in any project the evaluation
2
dimensions correspond to the traditional constraints of time, cost, and quality
parameters. Ashley et al (1987, p71) defined project success as “results
better than expected or normally observed in terms of cost, schedule, quality,
safety, and participant satisfaction”. The first study to identify lists of critical
success factors was undertaken by David Ashley (1987), who identified
which factors were most influential in successfully completing construction
projects.
Mengesha (2004) indicates that research into critical success factors has
been undertaken since 1967, and demonstrates the development of
information on critical success factors based on empirical and theoretical
studies (Ruben and Seeling, 1967 Empirical; Sayles & Chandler, 1971;
Martin, 1976; Baker et al, 1983 Empirical; Cleland and King, 1983; Pinto and
Selvin, 1987; Tukel & Rom, 1995 Empirical; Walid and Oya, 1996 Empirical
and Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995).
This thesis builds on these past studies by investigating the success and
delay factors they identify. This work examines success and delay factors in
an integrated fashion to determine which critical success factors are most
influential in avoiding particular critical delay factors. This will provide
organizations involved in construction projects with the foundation on which
such strategies - on how to avoid delays - can be developed in the future.
This research focuses on building construction projects in Brunei, which were
assessed for delay factors, and examines the correlation between the critical
success and delay factors identified, allowing the ranking of success factors
for these construction projects.
Once the critical success factors are identified, the opportunities for
improving project performance within the public sector delivery of Brunei
building construction projects are discussed. The research will determine the
relevance and applicability of these factors for the Brunei Darussalam
Construction Industry, with its inherently unique Asian culture, political
system and environmental issues. In the Brunei construction industry, project
3
performance is traditionally evaluated using schedule, cost and quality
performance, also known as the “iron triangle” (Atkinson, 1999).
In developed and developing countries, the construction industry plays a
major role in the economy by contributing significantly to the gross domestic
product, employing a sizable portion of the working population, accounting for
about half of the capital formation, and interacting strongly with other sectors
of the economy (Hillebrandt, 1985). With the economic development currently
taking place in Brunei, it can be demonstrated that there is very low
contribution from the construction industry to the economic growth of Brunei
Darussalam. In Brunei building construction projects, it can further be
demonstrated that there is very little achievement towards the
implementation of the National Development program as highlighted in the
Brunei Darussalam long term development plan (2007 -2017), where only
35% percent of the total allocated projects in the RKN8 (Eight National
Development Plan - 2001 to 2006) were implemented, with 32% on-going
and 33% in preliminary stages.
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The aim of the research is to improve project management performance in
the construction industry in Brunei. The objectives of the research are:
To identify the delay factors that currently exist in the construction
industry in Brunei Darussalam by exposing the most common and
fundamental problems affecting project delivery performance.
To identify the critical success factors which are most influential in
avoiding or preventing critical delay factors. This will be undertaken
through an examination of the correlation between critical success
factors and delay factors in construction projects.
To identify, using a consensus expert panel, the most important
critical success factors for the Brunei building construction industry.
4
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
Project success in the Brunei construction industry is currently very low. The
Brunei Darussalam Long Term Development Plan (2007–2012) indicates the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) average annual growth rate of Brunei
Darussalam during RKN8 (2001-2006) was short of the targeted rate of 5-6
percent. This was reportedly due to the slow progress in implementation of
RKN8 programs and projects and the decline in the production of oil and gas.
This research investigates ten building construction project failures in Brunei
with the intention of understanding the reasons for these failures. By
understanding the failure and determining the correlated success factors,
improvements to the industry can be made by focusing on those issues that
have the greatest impact.
The researcher’s experience with problems in construction projects in Brunei
and the preliminary study of the selected projects in Brunei building projects
that encountered delay, reflect those identified in the literature. However this
will be confirmed in this study. Common contractor-related problems are that
the project is not completed or delivered within the specified period; reduced
quality; use of unspecified materials; excessive budgets; unqualified
employees; project failures and withdrawals; inadequate construction
methods; maintenance problems; and safety problems such as project site
accidents.
The research also observed similar deficiencies for owners. Owner-related
factors common to the construction industry are late payment for completed
work; owner financial issues; owners’ interference; frequent change orders;
and slow decision making. Further, there are problems with owners or
service organizations exercising bureaucratic authority over the contractors,
and making unrealistic requests or orders after the contract had been signed.
Some of these demands included requesting specific subcontractors or
materials, or cutting the costs of any additional work. Additionally, some of
5
the owners or owners’ representatives were less than generous with
contractors, limiting the amount of profit they could make on their projects.
Engineering-related problems include discrepancies and mistakes in design
documents; delays in producing design documents; inadequate drawing
details; unclear drawings; complexity of project design; and lack of
communication and coordination between project teams. Furthermore,
engineers sometimes fail to perform the necessary prequalification
procedures, and fail to rely on valid information from the contractor;
submissions by contractors were blindly trusted, and no effort was made to
verify that the previously-executed projects mentioned in the submissions
were genuine and carefully executed by the contractor.
These problems all have had a negative effect on the parties involved by
potentially generating significant losses for all. They threaten the general
safety of construction projects, and eventually affect the economy as a
whole. In light of these issues, this research investigates these problems in
order to highlight the importance of the success factors that could prevent or
eliminate the delay factors. The research proposes that simply applying
critical success factors or taking the necessary precautions might not be
enough to enable project partners avoid critical delay factors during
construction. Further investigation to examine the correlation between the
critical success and the critical delay factors will allow contract parties and
investors to determine which factors deserve the most attention.
To this end, the research questions posed for these research problems are:
1. What are the real causes of project delays in the Brunei building
construction industry?
2. How are these delay factors correlated to critical success factors
within the construction industry?
6
1.4 JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH
For every finished construction project in Brunei, a number of deficiencies or
delays occur, and continue to occur. Occasionally, new problems develop
and despite efforts to implement success factors, these problems have
persisted. These problems were observed in the status of RKN7 (Seventh
National Development Plan) and RKN8 (Eighth National Development Plan).
Review of the RKN7 showed that a total of 405 projects were not
implemented and were subsequently dragged to RKN8. In RKN8, only 283
projects out of a total of 808 (35% of the total), were implemented (Brunei
Darussalam – Long Term Development Plan).
While a body of research exists that identifies major causes of project delay
and further literature identifies a range of success factors, no research was
found to exist which illustrated the relationship between success factors and
delay factors in building construction projects, and how knowledge of this
interaction may allow the delivery of more successful projects. This study is
also the first to measure and rank these relationships in order to help project
parties minimize construction project problems. This gap in the research has
motivated the current study.
Brunei lacks empirical research in this area of study. This research is the first
of its kind to investigate the key success factors for project success in Brunei
building projects. This research forms a foundation on which further local
research can be conducted. Internationally, the outcome of this research may
serve as evidentiary data from which other comparative studies could
develop in terms of different cultural, social, political and environmental
issues.
7
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted for this research comprises three stages
as follows:
Stage 1 - literature research to determine the research focus
Stage 2 – This stage consists of two activities as follows:
Activity 1 - specific survey of stakeholders (owners, contractors
and engineers) to identify the delay factors of the projects.
Activity 2 – general survey of stakeholders (owners, contractors
and engineers) to examine the correlation of the critical success
factors and delay factors.
Stage 3 – The Delphi method, as a popular qualitative research
approach, is used to obtain a consensus of opinion among a selected
group of Brunei experts, to rank the factors selected for possible
development to improve project performance in Brunei construction
projects.
1.6 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH
The thesis format follows the logical steps of establishing the research
questions, developing the methodology, gathering and analyzing data and
drawing conclusions. The thesis is organized into eight chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 discusses the background of the research by highlighting the
research problems, research purpose, research objectives, and justification
for the research, proposed methodology and thesis organization.
Chapter 2 gives a background on the construction industry in general. It
reviews the construction industry in Brunei, and identifies the characteristics
of the construction sector. Problems and constraints in the development of
the construction industry in Brunei and other developing countries are
8
discussed. This chapter also outlines the role of the construction industry in
the economies of Brunei and other developing countries.
Chapter 3 presents a literature review on the delay factors and critical
success factors. It examines literature and studies about delay factors in the
construction industry, large building construction projects, fast growing
economies and comparative studies of the causes of delays. The literature
and studies on success factors include critical success factors for
construction projects, a checklist of critical success factors for building
projects, success factors for different project objectives, success factors for
construction processes and critical success factors for stages of project life
cycle.
Chapter 4 describes the methodology used in the research. This
methodology seeks to identify the causes of delay factors and then ranks the
success factors most necessary for improved project performance. This
chapter reviews the survey method and the consensus-forming method.
Chapter 5 describes the data collection method, analysis techniques and
statistics used to identify causes of delay in the local building construction
industry.
Chapter 6 explains the data collection method, and the analysis used to
determine the correlation between critical delay factors and critical success
factors, including measurement of the strength and direction of the
relationship between factors.
Chapter 7 is the literature review on the consensus-forming Delphi method.
This includes an investigation of the background and history of the Delphi
technique, its strengths and weaknesses, application of Delphi, the process
of Delphi and shortcomings of the Delphi technique. This chapter also details
the analyses of data collected from the expert panel on the ranking of the
most required critical success factors.
9
Chapter 8 is the concluding chapter and discusses the research conclusions,
limitations of the research, contribution to new knowledge, and provides
recommendations and implications for further research.
10
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
The construction industry is a sector of the economy which is responsible for
the planning, design, construction, maintenance and eventual demolition of
buildings and works. It is essentially a service industry, obtaining its inputs
and outputs from various sectors of the economy with which it is interrelated
and interlinked, often in quite complex ways. The importance of construction
derives from its role in the generation of constructed physical facilities, and in
employment, which in turn, play a critical and highly visible role in the
process of development of the country.
Construction encompasses all civil engineering works and all types of new
building projects (including housing), as well as the maintenance and repair
of existing facilities. In developing countries, as much as one half of total
construction output may be in civil engineering projects – transport facilities,
power projects, irrigation, drainage, water supplies, etc. Housing generally
makes up less than one third of the total output; the remainder is in other
buildings – hospitals, schools, offices, factories, hotels, and agricultural
buildings (Wells, 1986).
This chapter reviews the construction industry in Brunei – a developing
county. It investigates Brunei’s construction industry including the role of
construction, the characteristics of the construction industry, and the
difficulties and challenges and common problems experienced in
construction projects.
2.1 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
In developing countries, the construction industry is a key barometer of
economic performance. The construction industry contributes a significant
11
percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) of these countries and
provides employment to a substantial proportion of the working population.
The construction industry plays a major role in the economy. Possible
measures of the role of the industry in the economy include:
The size of the industry is substantial in terms of percentage
contribution of construction to GDP. It provides an appreciable share
as its output typically constitutes 7 – 10 % of GDP;
Percentage proportion of construction to Gross Domestic Fixed
Capital Formation. The industry is critical to infrastructure
development and provides a sizable contribution to fixed capital
formation relative to other industries;
Its value-adding capacity;
The share of investment devoted to entirely new construction is likely
to be higher in developing countries than in developed; and
Construction is relatively labour-intensive in that it uses a larger
number of workers per unit output than most other industries, and as
such is important as an employer. The industry employs 5 – 15 % of
the labour force in most developing countries (UNIDO, 1993).
2.2 DIFFICULTIES FACED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Construction industries in all countries face many difficulties and challenges
(Gale & Fellows, 1990; Ofori, 1990). However, the problems facing the
construction industry in developing countries are significantly more
fundamental, more serious and more complex. In developing countries, these
difficulties and challenges sit alongside the general situation of socio-
economic stress, chronic resource shortages and a general inability to deal
with key issues (Ofori, 2000). Whilst in all countries, the construction industry
faces conditions of uncertainty and risk, the sources of such risk are severe
in developing countries and include:
12
Instability
Construction is one of the first industries to feel the effects of an economic
recession (UNIDO 1993). This phenomenon, coupled with financial and other
business risks, makes the development of this sector difficult. The
construction industry in both developed and developing countries is volatile;
however, instability and volatility are more severe in developing countries
where resources are more scarce (Wells, 1986). Discontinuities and
fluctuations which characterize construction demand are also volatile in
developing countries (Moavenzadeh, 1984; UNCHS, 1984a). For this reason,
local contractors are not able to maintain and develop permanent supervisory
staff and skilled labour, nor can they establish an appropriate supply of basic
equipment. Although clients (usually the government) may require the use of
local contractors to do the work, there may be very few qualified local
contractors available (Ruvkun, 1981).
Scarce resources
Many developing countries are richly endowed with natural resources, but
most are also characterized by shortage of resources such as money, trained
people, technical ‘know how’, and appropriate technology.
Relatively unskilled labour forces
Construction activity in developing countries draws mostly on unskilled
labour. A reliable supply of labour will be affected largely by the seasonal
demand for agricultural labour (Coukis & Grimes, 1980). Some developing
countries promote labour-intensive construction to provide social and
economic advantages for the population, even though this procedure might
hinder the quality and completion of the construction projects (Coukis &
Grimes, 1980). Although labour is abundant in developing countries there
tends to be a shortage of skilled labour (Moavenzadeh, 1984).
Low levels of productivity, overruns and excessive wastages
Research into construction projects in some developing countries indicates
that by the time a project is complete, the actual cost exceeds the original
contract price by 30% while change orders result in an 8.3% cost overrun (Al-
13
Momani, 1996). Both housing and public buildings experience delays in
completion and face constant modifications as work progresses. This has
proven to be a serious and very expensive problem in Jordan’s construction
industry, for example (Al-Momani, 1995). The successful execution of
construction projects, keeping them within estimated cost and the
prearranged schedules, primarily depends on the existence of an efficient
construction sector capable of sustained growth and development in order to
cope with the requirements of social and economic development and to
utilize the latest technology in planning and execution. Adequate planning at
the early stages of a project is critical for minimizing delays and cost overruns
(Chalabi & Camp, 1984).
Poor infrastructure
In general, poor infrastructure reduces productivity. Even the existence of an
established bureaucracy does not necessarily mean the country has
adequate and efficient infrastructure such as roads, water, utilities,
transportation systems etc. According to the World Bank (1997), up to 15% of
production is lost between the farm gate and the consumer because of poor
roads and storage facilities. This has the effect of reducing incomes to
farmers and raising costs for urban consumers, thus mitigating against
prospects for industrialization.
Fraudulent practices, and the inability to adopt best practice
The cost of materials, fraudulent practices and kickbacks, and fluctuations of
material prices are among the most important factors leading to high
construction costs in developing countries. Contractors, therefore, may need
to increase their budget to allow for ‘hidden taxes/costs’ in developing
countries. Further, the system of competitive bidding does little to alleviate
these constraints. In theory, the system of accepting the least cost bid should
encourage efficiency; however, contractors, particularly small ones, have
very little room for manoeuvre in pricing a tender. The design is fixed, the
cost of the material to be used is fixed and rates for hired equipment are fairly
standard. A contractor therefore makes a profit by limiting overhead costs,
raising labour productivity, and/or rationalizing site organization.
14
Small contractors also have the difficulty of obtaining credit, as there is no
continuity of work and no assurance of jobs. They cannot afford or obtain
credit for the purchase of plant and equipment. As a result they are often
trapped in a sequence of inefficient technology, leading to low productivity. In
contrast the large contracting firms, which are often foreign owned, are well
versed in the procedures governing the industry, and also have little difficulty
in providing the necessary bonds and guarantees.
Financing characteristics typical in developing countries
In developing countries, large projects are usually funded through loans from
international agencies or developed countries’ governments, and investments
from private firms based in other countries (Zuvekas, 1979).
The most important sources of multilateral finance for construction projects
are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These
institutions lend funds at interest rates below those charged by other private
leaders and sometimes at no interest (Zuvekas, 1979). Other international
lending agencies include the United Nations, represented by organizations
such as the World Health Organization (WHO), International Labour
Organization (ILO), United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) and United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS). These
agencies fund health centres, education infrastructure and affordable housing
settlements.
Government influence
Many of the construction projects in developing countries are so large and
costly that they can only be accomplished by direct government involvement.
The governments of developing countries generally set the rules for the
development of contractual relationships, thereby influencing the public
construction sector. The private sector also feels this influence through
policies and legislation regarding licenses and permits, sanitary and building
codes, minimum wage rates, corporate taxes, rules on importation of
materials, and terms and availability of financing for construction (World
15
Bank, 1984). According to the World Bank (1984) while the construction
industry in developed countries is affected by political institutions, it is not as
strongly affected as in developing countries. Contractors may, therefore,
need to exercise caution, accept greater levels of risk, and purchase
additional insurance to cover possible losses. Government responsibility to
ensure that improvements are made to the construction industry is best done
by encouraging local contractors to increase their capabilities, and enlarging
the capacity of local material industries.
Informal sector activities
The informal sector is defined as unregulated and unprotected individuals
and enterprises engaged in economic activities in construction, including the
supply of labour and production of building materials and components for
both the formal construction sector and directly in response to client needs.
According to Tassios (1992) the characteristics of the informal sector are low
quality of construction output; instability; resistance to progress and change;
and a considerable inertia in using modern materials and/or techniques. The
problems and difficulties faced by construction industries in developing
countries and the measures to manage them have been extensively
investigated and many studies and recommendations have been made to
address these difficulties (Ofori 2001, 1994; Turin 1973; Wells, 1986; World
Bank, 1984; ILO, 1987; UNCHS, 1981, 1984a). The governments of a
number of developing countries have implemented some of these
recommendations; however, results have been disappointing and the
problems continue (Ofori, 1993 & Kimani, 1988).
Ofori (1994) commented on the lack of progress in implementing these
recommendations, claiming that this is due to the inappropriateness of some
of the recommendations and the initiatives adopted; poor executive capacity
of the implementing agencies; lack of resources for implementations of
initiatives; and neglect of the construction industry by governments and their
lack of commitment to solving its problems. Another important reason for the
16
lack of progress in construction industry development is the absence of
measurable targets in programmes for improving the industry’s performance.
2.3 BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
2.3.1 Introduction to Brunei
Brunei Darussalam is a small country located on the north-western coast of
Borneo Island, facing the South China Sea, and with a land area of about
5765 square kilometres as shown in Fig 2.1. In mid 2008, Brunei had an
estimated population of around 400,000. Brunei is divided into four districts:
Brunei-Muara district; Tutong district; Belait district; and Temburong district.
The capital city Bandar Seri Begawan is located in Brunei-Muara District as
shown in Fig 2.2.
Fig 2 .1 Location of Brunei - Map of South East Asia (ref Brunei map.google.com)
17
Fig 2.2 Brunei Darussalam by district (ref Brunei Map. google.com)
Brunei adopts a national ideology of Malay Islamic Monarchy. It is an
integration of three elements: the Malay language and culture, the teachings
of Islamic laws and values, and the monarchy system of administration. His
Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam formed
the Ministry of Development immediately after the proclamation of Brunei
Darussalam’s independence on 1st January 1984.
Brunei Darussalam today enjoys one of the highest standards of living in
Asia. This has been largely the result of political stability, and investment
from oil and gas revenues in the country’s infrastructure. The economy is still
very much dependent on the oil and gas sector. Although oil and gas
resources have contributed much to the nation’s prosperity, economic growth
has, on the whole, not kept pace with population growth.
A new long-term development framework was formulated, for a 30-year
period which began in 2007, consisting of the national vision, the outline of
strategies and policies for development (OSPD) and the national
development plan (RKN). The national vision aims to make Brunei
Darussalam, by 2035, a nation which will be widely recognized for the
accomplishment of its educated and highly skilled people as measured by the
highest national standards; quality of life that is among the top 10 nations in
18
the world; and a dynamic and sustainable economy with income per capita
within the top 10 countries in the world.
The launching of RKN 2007–2012 (National Development Plan) marks a
strategic shift in the planning and implementation of development projects.
RKN 2007–2012 is the first RKN to be formulated based on the objectives of
the national vision 2035. In the previous four RKN (1986–2005), development
efforts were focused on the following objectives: (i) to improve the quality of
life of the people; (ii) to maximize the economic utilisation of natural
resources; (iii) to develop non-oil industries; (iv) to accelerate human
resources development to meet the country’s demand for an increasingly
sophisticated economy; (v) to maintain full employment and increase the
level of productivity; (vi) to maintain a moderate rate of inflation; (vii) to foster
a more disciplined, self reliant and caring society; (viii) to encourage and
nurture the development of leaders of industry and commerce; and (ix) to
have a clean and healthy environment.
After twenty years of development, significant achievements were made on
the objectives of improving the quality of life, maintaining a low inflation rate
and a clean and healthy environment. On economic utilization of resources,
human resource development (HRD), maintaining full employment and
increasing the level of productivity, the achievements were moderate.
However, progress on the development of non-oil based industries; the
creation of a highly disciplined, self reliant and caring society; and the
advancement of leaders of industry and commerce, was relatively low.
On the economic front, progress has been inconsistent. After some period of
growth during the early 1990s, Brunei’s economy has shown some signs of
weakness in the past few years especially in the aftermath of the Asian
financial crisis. In 2005, which marked the end of RKN8 period, Brunei
Darussalam’s national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was BND15.9 billion
(Aus $13.2 billion). GDP per capita during the period was around BND43,000
(Aus $36,000), which was 35 per cent higher compared to the 2000 GDP per
capita of around BND32,000 (Aus $26,000). The oil and gas sector’s
19
contribution to GDP was around 54.1 per cent, compared to 57.5 percent at
the end of RKN7 in 2000. However, GDP growth in real terms averaged only
2.1 per cent per annum during the RKN8 period. This growth was lower than
the targeted annual growth rate of between 5 and 6 per cent. Brunei
Darussalam’s economy grew slower than the global growth of around 3.8 per
cent per year (2000 – 2004) and even slower compared to ASEAN’s average
of around 5.0 per cent per year in the same period.
Given the heavy reliance of Brunei Darussalam’s economy on fiscal stimulus,
the delay in the implementation of the development projects has contributed
to lower economic growth. This limits the effectiveness of the government’s
fiscal stimulus strategy. One of the key challenges to accelerate economic
growth rates during RKN 2007-2012, therefore, is to enhance the national
capacity to carry out development initiatives. To that effect, institutional
strengthening is one of the development agenda for the next five years.
Bureaucratic processes that determine the efficiency of government’s
operations will be streamlined in order to improve the quality and efficiency of
project implementation.
Under the current trajectory, the rate of disbursement of RKN funds will
gradually increase from around half a billion at the beginning of RKN 2007-
2012 to BND1.7 billion at the end of RKN 20007-2012. Such a trajectory will
translate to an average growth rate of 5 per cent during RKN 2007-2012
period. However, with the expectation of a full implementation of RKN, in
combination with improvement in the capacity to spend (achieve at least 80
per cent of the total allocation), the government expects to spend around
BND1.7 billion (Aus1.4 billion) yearly which will translate to an average
growth rate of 6 per cent. Such a target will only be achieved with the full
collaboration and co-operation of all government agencies and the private
sector. To achieve this, the development agenda will be shaped by the need
to: (i) ensure improvement in implementation; (ii) address impediments to
high economic growth and socio economic development; and (iii) meet the
vision 2035 goals.
20
2.3.2 Brunei Construction Industry
In developed and developing countries, the construction industry plays a
major role in the economy by contributing significantly to the gross domestic
product, employing a sizable portion of the working population, accounting for
about half of the capital formation, and interacting strongly with other sectors
of the economy (Hillebrandt, 1985). This is not happening in Brunei - as
shown in Fig 2.3, which demonstrates that there is very low contribution from
the construction industry to the economic growth of Brunei Darussalam
(Refer to Appendix A1 and A2 showing contribution from all sectors)
Fig 2.3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate 2001 to 2005. (Brunei Darussalam
Long-Term Development Plan)
The National Development Plans ensure that the state funding allocation is
not just concentrated on maintaining the peace and prosperity of the country
as well as the standard of living of the people, but also on enhancing
economic activity, particularly in the private sector, by capitalizing on Brunei’s
competitive advantages. These include Brunei’s political stability and the
stability of its currency; its educated, productive population and workforce;
the high quality basic amenities and infrastructure; and the government’s pro-
business and pro-investment outlook. If the allocations of budget are spent
21
appropriately and wisely, then the government can expect to achieve a better
growth rate.
The Ministry of Development has been assigned the responsibility of
planning and providing physical infrastructure for the nation. These projects
are to ensure that there is continuous improvement in the standard of living of
the people as well as to strengthen the economic and social development of
Brunei Darussalam in a coordinated and structured manner. The Ministry of
Development, through its units and departments, strives to improve the
standard of living and quality of life by making available to public and
potential investors, modern and up-to-date facilities and services. The
following chart shows the various departments and their relationships within
the Ministry of Development (Fig 2.4).
The Ministry of Development has constructed many projects as part of its
National Developments Plan. The Government of Brunei has approved large
amounts of money for the implementation of projects and programmes in the
National Development Plan – the funds being allocated to seven sectors as
follows:
(1) Industry and Trade;
(2) Transportation and Communication;
(3) Social Services;
(4) Public Utilities;
(5) Public Buildings;
(6) Security and
(7) Miscellaneous.
22
Fig 2.4 Ministry of Development Organization (Ministry of Development-2007)
There were 808 projects being funded during RKN8. The sectoral breakdown
is given in Fig (2.5). The social services sector received the biggest share
with a total scheme value of almost BND2 billion (Aus1.6 billion).
MINISTER
DEPUTY MINISTER
PERMANENT SECRETARY (ADMINSTRATION & FINANCE)
DEPUTY PERMANENT SECRETARY
DEPUTY PERMANENT SECRETARY
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
SURVEY DEPARTMENT
LAND DEPARTMENT
HOUSING UNIT
FINANCIAL REGULATION
UNIT
LANDS UNIT
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ROAD SERVICES
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS &
RECREATION
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ISTANA MAINTENANC
E
BUMIPUTRA GUIDANCE &
DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION PLANNING & RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE
DRAINAGE &
SEWERAGE
TECHNICAL SERVICES
BUILDING SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PERMANENT SECRETARY (TECHNICAL & PROFESSIONAL
WATER SERVICES
23
1,074
1,971
839
1,172
632350
143
1,119
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Indu
stry
&C
omm
erce
Soc
ial S
ervi
ces
Tra
nspo
rt &
Com
mun
icat
ions
Pub
lic U
tiliti
es
Pub
lic B
uild
ings
Sec
urity
Mis
cella
neou
s
ICT
BN
D B
illi
on
s
Fig (2.5) Total Allocation of RKN8 by Sectors (Brunei Darussalam Long-Term
Development Plan)
Out of 808 projects, only 283 projects (or 35 per cent of the total) were
completed, while 253 projects are still on-going, and the remaining 272
projects are at the early stages in their project cycles. These include projects
which are in the process of tendering, pre-design, concept formulation and
those awaiting appointment of consultants. See table (2.1)
Table2.1 Status of RKN8 by Category of project (Brunei Darussalam Long-Term
Development Plan)
Project Status
2001 2002 2003 –
March 2004 April 2004 – March 2005
April 2005 – March 2006
Completed 72 85 172 241 283 On-Going 97 147 200 203 253 Preliminary Stages
328 503 387 320 272
Grand Total 497 735 759 764 808
As of March 2006, the total development expenditure was BND 1,845 million
(Aus1.540 million) or 42 per cent of the total allocation (Table2.2). The
actual expenditure for sectoral development is shown in Fig (2.6).
24
Table (2.2) Financial status of RKN8 – Expenditure (BND million)
Financial Year Allocation Expenditure Percentage
2001 550 202 36.7
2002 1,000 435 43.5
Jan 2003 – March 2004 1,000 366 36.6
April 2004 – March 2005 900 355 39.4
April 2005 – March 2006 900 487 54.1
Total (2001 – March 2006) 4,350 1,845 42.4
121
380
467 488
169100
2496
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Indu
stry
&C
omm
erce
Soc
ial S
ervi
ces
Tra
nspo
rt &
Com
mun
icat
ions
Pub
lic U
tiliti
es
Pub
lic B
uild
ings
Sec
urity
Mis
cella
neou
s
ICT
BN
D B
illi
on
s
Fig 2.6 Actual Development Expenditure of RKN8 by Sectors (Brunei Darussalam
Long-Term Development Plan)
It has been shown (refer to Table 2.1) that there has been very little
achievement towards the implementation of the National Development
programme. It has become somewhat of a trend that projects allocated for
the one National Development Plan drag on to the next National
Development Plan. Projects not completed (refer to Table 2.1), which were
on-going or at a preliminary stage, will extend to the next RKN9 (2007-2012).
It has become a goal of the Ministry to improve and achieve the development
plan successfully in order to deliver His Majesty’s objective of ensuring that
25
there are continuous improvements in the standard of living of the people, as
well as to strengthen the economic and social development of Brunei
Darussalam. The Public Works Department, under the Ministry of
Development, is the prime agency for the implementation of construction
projects. The implementation of construction projects are in accordance with
the Brunei Darussalam Construction Regulation.
It has been noted in many Brunei construction projects that poor performance
is often interpreted as project failure. Such project failures are commonly due
to delay factors where projects are well behind schedule (Economics
Development Board Annual Report 2005). One of the critical failures faced by
government authorities is the frequent and lengthy delay in such projects. It
was found that delayed projects accounted for approximately 70% of projects
undertaken by the Public Works Department. In a preliminary study of
building construction implemented in the Public Works Department
conducted for the purpose of this research, it was found that 68% of the
projects completed during the period 1996-2004 had been delayed. Ten
projects were randomly selected from the delayed projects and it was found
that their average extent of delay was 80%.
The problem of project delay in the construction industry is a global
phenomenon and the construction industry in Brunei is no exception.
Frequent and lengthy delays of projects have become one of the most critical
problems affecting Brunei building construction projects. It has been found
(Public Works Department report) that up to 70% of projects are well behind
schedule. It has also been identified that 70% of projects for the last National
Development Plan (RKN7) had not been implemented (project review RKN7-
Economic Planning Unit). The RKN8 National Development Plan is also
exhibiting very slow implementation of projects (Brunei Darussalam-Long
Term Development Plan 2007-2012).
The main purpose of this study is to identify the delay factors and their effect
on project success – identifying and addressing delay factors can help
project parties reach their intended goals with greater efficiency. This study
26
will identify the critical success factors in developing countries and determine
which were the most influential in preventing project delays in the Brunei
construction industry with its unique culture, political system and
environmental issues.
2.4 CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION : BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
The strategies and operational relationships between construction project
parties are directly related to the type of construction project, and there are
different ways to classify them. According to Halpin and Woodhead (1998)
there are three major construction categories:
Heavy and highway: construction of highways, bridges, airports,
pipelines, dams and tunnels.
Non residential buildings: either institutional or educational buildings
(such as schools or universities, warehouses, and government
buildings) or industrial (such as petroleum refineries or nuclear power
plants).
Residential: construction of single-family homes, multiunit town
houses, or high-rise buildings.
The types of projects most common in the Brunei construction industry, and
which are considered to be the backbone of Brunei’s development efforts,
include the following:
Public housing
Schools or Universities
Industrial facilities
Commercial buildings
Power plants
Dams
Irrigation system
Roads and transportation
27
Water purification plants
Health and sanitation facilities
Government buildings.
2.5 PROJECT PARTIES: BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Table 2.3 summarises the construction project parties’ roles. The primary
construction project parties are:
1. Owner: Owners play the most important role in the construction project
life cycle by defining project requirements, functions and services.
Also, owners are responsible for providing financial support to a
project.
2. Contractor: Firms or individuals generally contract with owners in order
to execute certain projects according to specific conditions. The
contractors are usually private contractors who undertake to construct
the project under certain terms and conditions, and to the design and
specifications provided by the project teams.
3. Designer (Architect/Engineer): The third party in construction projects
is the designer, who interprets the owner’s needs and creates a
tangible blueprint of a project. For some projects, the designer also
assumes the role of supervising activities during the construction
phase. The project team usually includes the various departments
within the ministry of development as well as a private consultant who
is appointed to implement government projects.
4. Government Regulatory Agencies involved in the project: These
agencies include, among others, electrical services, public works
department (building, water , sewerage, structure, etc), fire brigade,
Economic Planning unit, health, Town and Country planning, the Land
Department and Survey Department.
28
Table 2.3 Construction Project Parties Roles
CONTRACT PARTY
ROLES
Owner
Determines whether it is necessary to build the facility Provides financial support to develop the project Determines the scope of work Most important player in the process
Contractor
Creates the facility based on the A/E’s drawings and specifications
Manages different resources during the project’s development phase
Architect/Engineer (A/E)
Responsible for project design Fortifies the final project Determines which materials will be used and how they will
fit together Develops the project’s drawing and specifications
2.6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Traditionally construction projects develop in a clearly sequential fashion, and
the general steps involved are as follows:
1. The need for a facility is defined by the owner.
2. Initial feasibility and cost projections are developed.
3. The decision to either proceed with the conceptual design or improve
the idea is made.
4. The conceptual design and scope of work is developed in order to
determine a cost estimate.
5. A decision is made to proceed with the development of final design
documents.
6. Based on the final design document, the project is advertised and
proposals, including costs for construction work, are solicited.
7. Based on the received proposal, a contractor is selected and
instructed to proceed with the work.
8. The process of constructing the facility is initiated.
9. Work is completed and the facility is available for acceptance and
occupancy/utilisation.
29
10. A period of testing takes place to ensure the facility is constructed
properly and operates as designed.
11. The facility operates and is maintained for the duration of its specified
service life.
2.7 COMMON PROBLEMS: BRUNEI CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
The delays experienced during the stages of construction in Brunei can be
identified in three overlapping areas: problems of shortages or inadequacies
in industry infrastructure; problems caused by clients and
consultants/engineers; and problems caused by a contractor’s
incompetence/inadequacies. The researcher reviewed the projects which
encountered delays, and based on follow-up discussion with stakeholders
(Owners, Engineers, Consultants and Contractors) the following were cited
as common problems in the Brunei building construction process:
2.7.1 Owners
The most frequently cited cause of delay for construction projects in Brunei is
change orders from the owners. There are two types of delay: compensable
and non compensable delay (these delays are explained in chapter 3). For
marketing reasons, change orders tend to occur more often in private
projects because private owners are in the habit of changing plans to meet
customer demand and in line with the changing economic climate.
Contractors accused owners of being slow in decision making, and requests
from owners are usually made at short notice, thereby impacting on a
contractor’s plan. Some change orders can be large, requiring extensive
redesign. These results, in many instances, in contractors wasting resources
while waiting for owners to decide on specialty contractors and designers,
decorative materials and suppliers, and provision of adequate information on
the changes required.
2.7.2 Engineers/Designers
There is a general consensus that one of the major causes of project delays
is due to the designer’s incomplete drawings, particularly inconsistent
30
detailing of drawings. Investigations also identified several instances of
incorrect dimensioning of walls and openings, differences in dimensions
between plans and sections, inadequate detailing of difficult locations and
inconsistent detailing. Delays are also linked to the boom in the construction
industry, which resulted in many design offices being overloaded and
understaffed. Consequently, project designs are often rushed to tender in a
short time to meet bid dates, with no proper feasibility studies, and without
detailed briefing. This results in many contracts being bid with incomplete
information, and thereby requiring extensive changes during construction.
The rush to complete designs also creates problems of coordination between
the architectural, structural, mechanical, sanitary, electrical and other
systems.
Other reasons for design-originated delays include the problems of personnel
or project teams. These problems are related to a lack of technical staff in the
construction industry and a shortage of design professionals. The site
personnel delegated by design practices are often unqualified and may not
have been involved in the original design. They are thus not able to effect
changes without reference to their design offices. Another problem observed
is that generally, design offices give higher priority to new projects, creating a
lack of supervision and attention to those projects using already-allocated
personnel.
2.7.3 Consultant
The appointment of a consultant as a service to a client is common practice
in Brunei due to the shortage of skilled engineers and staff. The consultant
management firm designs the buildings, ensures that all works accord with
drawings and specifications, supervises and coordinates the various activities
of the parties to the project. However, consultants are accused of creating
delays due to their lack of experience, incompetence, personal interests and
uncompromising attitude.
Many consultant management personnel are unwilling to accept contractors’
proposed changes, even if the changes are reasonable, because they
31
believe the contractors lack experience. Contractors usually complain that
the consultant management firm maintains an uncompromising attitude and,
rather than working in harmony to solve problems, are in the habit of finding
faults. Contractors also argue that many consultant management personnel
are often incompetent, and in trying to protect themselves, are not able to
distinguish what is important from what is not. Rather than plan inspections in
accordance with the sequence of work, consultant management staff and
inspection teams tend to wait to be approached to approve works. Last
minute non-approvals cause delays and waste contractors’ resources.
2.7.4 Contractors
The contractor is blamed for the majority of project delays, generally being
accused of poor management and technical performance. A contractor’s
lacks of technically qualified and experienced staff lead to poor site
organization and management of material and equipment. Poor management
leads to inadequate planning, inadequate site management, and lack of
coordination. These result in cost, time and budget deficiencies. Contractors
argue that the planning and schedule deficiencies are caused by clients who
are in the habit of changing their minds very often, whilst insisting that short
term planning is unnecessary.
Financing is cited as a specific problem for contractors when they are not
paid regularly. Irregular payment on public projects is a major cause of
liquidity problems for contractors. However, unreasonably low bidding and
contractor’s financial difficulties are problems under the direct control of the
contractor.
2.7.5 Construction resources suppliers
Demand exceeded the supply of major construction during the boom period
where projects were rushed to meet the bid dates. The boom period also saw
shortages of import materials. Local manufacturers could not expand
production facilities fast enough to meet demand. Import restrictions on major
construction materials are believed to be the major cause of shortages.
Whenever import permits are granted to meet local demand, the quality of
32
imported material deteriorates and creates problem with the delivery time of
materials. Continued expansion in the construction sector of the economy
creates supply problems, which drives up the prices of materials. The
materials suppliers generally shop for the lowest-priced sources outside the
country, with little regard for quality. Therefore, materials’ suppliers can afford
to charge high prices for poor services. Contractors also complained about
the quality of imported materials.
Materials are not the only resource in short supply in periods of economic
boom. Qualified architects, contractors, engineers, and skilled labour in
general are in high demand during this period. The staff shortage problem is
felt at two levels: at the technical level and at the craft level. The shortage of
workers is believed to be due to several factors. Demand increases greatly
while supply of labour remains constant. The seasonal nature of employment
in construction is another major problem. Many workers do not take on
construction work all year round. The few skilled construction workers can
easily get higher salaries by moving between jobs.
Many construction companies rely on labour suppliers for their site workers
as a means of minimising labour management problems. This in turn creates
coordination problems. When work is temporarily reduced on one site, the
supplier transfers workers to other sites where they are needed. It is then
difficult to get enough workers back on the first site when they are needed.
These staffing problems have created serious quality control difficulties for
project management. It is generally accepted that the often low-quality
standards of buildings are due to the quality and supply of construction staff.
2.7.6 Other sources
Delays associated with government authorities centre around the time taken
in granting permits and approvals. The relevant authority in Brunei gives
separate permits for substructure and super structure work. In Brunei there
are also many authorities involved in approving plans before work
commences. The authorities involved are land, housing, electric, water, road,
environment and health. Therefore, construction projects can be delayed by
33
permit problems and approval from the authorities. Working in cities like
Brunei also means having to contend with problems such as lack of
transportation, storage space, accommodation, restricted working time,
restricted plant movements, etc. Disputes with neighbours are another
source of work stoppages, due to their impact on working space for
equipment such as tower cranes, as well as restrictions on working times.
In summary, the common problems facing the Brunei construction industry
can be classified into the following categories:
Finance-related problems
The common finance-related problems are high cost financing, difficulty in
getting loans, interference from owners in decision-making processes, and
shortages in funding.
Owner-related problems
The common owner-related problems are lack of strategic management,
changes in requirements, inadequate project feasibility studies, lack of clear
bidding processes, excessive change orders, unclear responsibility, lack of
capable representatives, owner’s financial difficulties, owner’s poor contract
management skills, and slow decision making.
Contractor-related problems
Contractor-related problems include inadequate experience, construction
errors, poor site management and supervision, equipment failures or
allocation problems, inadequate labour skills, inadequate site manager
authority, inadequate planning and scheduling, inaccurate estimation, and
poor contract management.
Consultant-related problems
Consultant-related problems are attributable to designers and consultants in
their preparation and approval of drawings, design errors, delays in work
approval, lack of involvement and lack of responsibility.
34
Project attribute problems
These problems derive from the characteristics of the project. They include
ambiguous project scope, lack of constructability, inaccurate site
investigation, pollution during construction, non-value added works,
inadequate quality assurance and control, unrealistically imposed contract
duration and obsolete technology.
Coordination-related problems
These problems include poor communication, excessive use of
subcontractors and nominated suppliers, excessive bureaucracy, fraudulent
practices and kickbacks, misalignment of a client’s expectation, and
jurisdictional disputes.
Environmental-related problems
These refer to external problems caused by natural conditions such as
inclement weather, or socioeconomic conditions such as material shortage or
late delivery, labour shortage, price fluctuations, inconsistent policies and
slow government permits.
35
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW INTO PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS AND
DELAY FACTORS
Increasing uncertainties in technology, budgets and development processes
create a dynamic construction industry. Building projects are now much more
complex and difficult and the building project team faces unprecedented
changes. The study of project success/failure and critical success factors
(CSFs) is a means of understanding and thereby improving the effectiveness
of construction projects. However the concept of project success remains
ambiguously defined in the mind of construction professionals.
One of the objectives of this research is to understand and explain, through a
study of the literature, critical success and delay factors. This chapter defines
and describes project delay factors and success factors as identified in the
literature. The literature review is divided into two parts. The first part
summarises the studies on causes of delays to construction projects; the
second part explores critical success factors.
3.1 DELAY FACTORS
In the context of the construction industry, delay can be defined as the extra
time required to finish a construction project beyond its original (planned)
duration, whether compensated for or not. The desire to finish a project on
time, under the planned budget, with the highest quality, and in a safe
manner is common goals for all contract parties, including the owner,
contractor and consultant. Delays usually result in losses of one form or
another for everyone. Research indicates the effect of delays as (1) time
overrun (2) cost overrun (3) disputes (4) arbitration (5) litigation, and (6) total
abandonment ( Murali, 2006: Albinu and Jagboro, 2002; Chan and
Kumaraswamy, 2002). To control this problem and minimise construction
36
project delays, construction parties should identify the causes of delays and
the project factors that may facilitate their avoidance.
Ahmed et al (2003) indicates that delays can be divided into three major
types, namely:
1. excusable and non-excusable;
2. compensable and non-compensable; and
3. concurrent.
Non-excusable delays are caused by contractors or subcontractors or
material suppliers, through no fault of the owner. The contractor might be
entitled to compensation from the delaying subcontractor or supplier, but
compensation cannot be sought from the owner. Therefore, non-
compensable delays usually result in no additional money and no additional
time being granted to the contractor (Alaghbari, 2005).
Excusable delays, also known as “force majeure” delays, are the third
general category of delay. These delays are commonly called “acts of God”
because they are not the responsibility or fault of any particular party. Most
contracts allow for the contractor to obtain an extension of time for excusable
delays, but no additional money (Alaghbari, 2005). A concurrent delay
happens in a situation where more than one factor delays the project at the
same time or in overlapping periods of time (Alaghbari, 2005).
Compensable delays are those that are generally caused by the project’s
owner or their agent. The most common form of compensable delay is
inadequate drawings and specifications, but compensable delays can also
arise from the owner’s failure to respond in a timely fashion to requests for
information or shop drawings, owner changes in design or materials, and
owner disruption and/or change in the sequence of work. The contractor is
entitled to both additional money and additional time resulting from
compensable delays (Alaghbari, 2005).
37
Ahmed et al, (2003) claim that responsibility for delay is related to whether
the contractor is awarded or is liable for costs and additional time to complete
the project. The categories of responsibility are:
Owner responsible – the contractor will be granted a time extension
and additional costs (indirect) where warranted;
Contractor (or subcontractor) responsible – the contractor will not be
granted time nor costs, and may have to pay damages/penalties;
Neither party (i.e. “act of god”) responsible – contractor will receive
additional time to complete the project but no costs will be granted and
no damages/penalties assessed; and
Both parties responsible – contractor will receive additional time to
complete the project but no costs will be granted and no
damages/penalties assessed.
Concurrent delays are more complicated but are also a more typical type of
delay. They arise when more than one factor delays the project at the same
time or in overlapping periods of time (Alaghbari, 2005).
3.1.1 Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry
Much research has been undertaken on construction delay. Baldwin et al.
(1971) examined the subject of delays and noticed that large construction
projects experienced considerable setback and loss when they encountered
any kind of delay. The study included a survey of 1400 professionals, with a
response rate of 61% contractors, 44% architects, and 30% engineers. In
spite of the different viewpoints held by each of the groups surveyed, there
were definite areas of agreement among them. All three groups felt that
weather, labour supply and subcontractors’ scheduling were the three major
causes of delay. Table 3.1 lists the range of delay factors identified by
respondents, in order of importance.
38
Table 3.1 Delay Factors in Order of the Importance (Baldwin et al, 1971)
Contractors Architects Engineers
Weather Subcontractors Weather
Labour supply Labour Subcontractors
Subcontractors Weather Labour
Design changes Manufactured items Manufactured items
Shop drawings Finances Finances
Foundation conditions Material shortage Foundation conditions
Material shortage Shop drawings Permit
Manufactured items Permit Material shortage
Sample approvals Foundation conditions Design changes
Jurisdictional disputes Design changes Shop drawings
Equipment failure Construction mistakes Jurisdictional disputes
Contracts Jurisdictional disputes Equipment failures
Construction mistakes Sample approvals Construction mistakes
Inspection Building Codes Inspection
Finances Contracts Contracts
Permits Equipment failure Sample approvals
The results of this survey identify three inter-related categories of
construction industry problems in developing economies: (a) problems of
shortages or inadequacies in industry infrastructure (mainly supply of
resources); (b) problems caused by clients and consultants; and (c) problems
caused by contractor incompetence/inadequacies. (Ogunlana and
Olomolaiye (1989). Figure 3.1 demonstrates the inter-relationship of these
problems for the construction industry.
39
Fig 3.1 Problems causing delays in Construction Projects (Ogunlana and
Olomolaiye -1989).
3.1.2 Causes of Delay in Large construction projects
In 2004, Assaf and Al-Hejji conducted a survey on time performance of
different types of construction projects to determine the causes of delay and
their importance according to each of the project participants – 15 owners, 19
consultants and 23 contractors. The authors identified seventy-three causes
of delay (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997; Kaming et al,
1997; Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1998; Noulmanee,1999; Al-Momani, 2000;
Ubaid, 1991), and arranged the identified factors into nine groups, as shown
in Table 3.2.
Nguyen et al, (2004) conducted a case study from Vietnam on large
construction projects in developing countries. The study revealed that there
were certain interrelationships among the problems. The top ranked
problems in term of occurrence were grouped under five major factors: (1)
incompetent designers and contractors, (2) poor estimation and change
management, (3) social and technological issues, (4) site related issues, and
(5) improper techniques and tools.
Contractor’s Own Problem
Contract / Client /Consultants Problems
Environment / Industry Problems
40
In 2008, Shamas-Ur-Rehman Toor and Stephen O. Ogunlana investigated
problems causing project delay in Thailand. An inventory of 75 problems
categorized under 10 groups was used to examine the most significant
problems causing delay in major projects in Thailand. The findings showed
that problems related to designers, clients, contractors and finance were
rated as most significant, whereas a multicultural and multilingual
environment, large number of participants and the involvement of foreign
designers were perceived as not very significant problems. Most of the
problems listed support the Assaf and Al-Hejji and Nguyen et al (2004) study
mentioned above.
3.1.3 Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects
The study undertaken by Assaf et al. (1995) consisted of two phases. The
first phase included a literature review and interviews with local contractors,
architectural engineers, and owners, where fifty-six causes of delay were
identified. These factors were grouped into nine major categories:
Materials – causes of delay related to shortages, material changes,
delivery, damage, and manufacturing of materials;
Labour – shortages of labour, labour skill, and the nationalities of the
labourers;
Equipment – delay related to failure, shortage, and delivery of the
equipment, or the productivity or skill of operators of the equipment;
Financing – contractor’s financing requirements and progress
payments paid by owners;
Environment – climatic conditions, social and cultural impact,
geological conditions;
Changes – delays as a result of omissions, errors, and changes of
scope by owners;
Government relations – delay related to permits, labour visa
requirements, and government bureaucratic procedures;
Contractual relationship – problems involving the contractual
relationship among the various parties involved in a project, who have
varying and sometimes conflicting interests;
41
Scheduling and controlling techniques – poor planning and scheduling
practices, lack of management expertise in project control, and poor
record keeping and maintenance.
In the second phase of the study, a questionnaire was developed that
focused on the fifty-six causes of delay. A survey was conducted to assess
the relative importance of each cause of delay on large building projects
valued at 10 million Saudi Riyals (Aus $3.2 million) Twenty-four contractors,
fifteen architects and engineers, and nine owners completed the survey.
The study found that all three groups generally agreed on the ranking of the
delay factors (financing was ranked the highest by all three parties, and the
environment was ranked the lowest). Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 illustrate the
most important factors, and their rankings, identified in this study.
Table 3.2 Causes of delay in large construction projects categorised into nine groups
(Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2004)
Groups of delay Causes of delay
Project-related factors
Original contract duration is too short Legal disputes between various parties Inadequate definition of substantial completion Ineffective delay penalties Type of construction contract (turnkey, construction
only, etc) Type of project bidding and award (negotiation, lowest
bidder)
Owner-related factors
Delay in progress payment by owner Delay in furnishing and delivering the site to the
contractor by the owner Change orders by owner during construction Delay in revising and approving design documents by
owner Delay in approving shop drawings and sample materials Poor communication and coordination by owner and
other parties Slowness in the decision making process by owner Conflicts over joint ownership of the project Lack of incentives for the contractor for finishing ahead
of schedule Suspension of work by owner
Contractor-related factors
Difficulties in financing the project Conflicts in sub-contractor’s schedule in execution of
project Re-work due to errors during construction
42
Conflicts between contractor and other parties (consultant and owner)
Poor site management and supervision Inadequate construction methods Delays in sub-contractor’s work Inadequate contractor’s work Frequent change of sub-contractors because of their
inefficient work Poor qualification of contractor’s technical staff Delay in site mobilisation
Consultant-related factors
Delay in performing inspection and testing Inflexibility Poor communication/coordination between consultant
and other parties Delay in reviewing and approving design documents Conflict between consultant and design engineer Inadequate experience of consultant
Design team-related factors
Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents Delays in producing design documents Unclear and inadequate details in drawings Complexity of project design Insufficient data collection and survey before design Misunderstanding of owner’s requirements by design
engineer Inadequate design-team experience Non-use of advanced engineering design software
Materials-related factors
Shortage of construction materials in market Changes in material types and specifications during
construction Delay in material delivery Damage of sorted material when they are needed
urgently Delay in manufacturing special building materials Late procurement of materials Delay in selection of finishing materials due to
availability of many types in market
Plan/equipment-related factors
Equipment breakdown Shortage of equipment Inadequate equipment-operator’s skill Low productivity and efficiency of equipment Lack of high-technology mechanical equipment
Labour-related factors
Shortage of labour Unqualified workforce Nationality of workforce Low productivity level of workforce Personal conflicts among workforce
43
External factors
Effects of surface conditions Delay in obtaining permits from municipality Hot weather effect on construction activities Rain effect on construction activities Unavailability of utilities on site Effects of social and cultural factors Traffic control and restriction at job site Accident during construction Differing site (ground) conditions Changes in government regulations and laws Delay in providing services from utilities Delay in performing final inspection and certification by
third party
Source: Assaf and Al-Hejji (2004)
Table 3.3 Most Important Delay Factors According to Contractors
Type Delay factor Rank
Scheduling Preparation and approval of shop drawings 1
Financing Delays in contractor’s progress payment by owner 2
Changes Design change by owner during construction 2
Material Delay due to special manufacture outside Saudi Arabia 4
Financing Owner’s cash problems during construction 5
Contractual relationship
Slowness of owner’s decision making process 6
Material Slow delivery of construction material 7
Changes Design errors made by designers 7
Scheduling Waiting for sample material to be approved 7
Source: Assaf and Al-Hejji (2004)
44
Table 3.4 Most Important Delay Factors According to Architectural Engineers
Type Delay factor Rank
Financing Owner’s cash problems during construction 1
Financing Financing by contractors during construction 2
Contractual relationship
Relationship between different subcontractors’ schedules 2
Contractual relationship
Slowness of owner’s decision making process 2
Financing Delays in construction progress payment by owner 5
Materials Changes in type of construction materials 6
Scheduling Poor judgment of people involved in estimating time 6
Contractual relationship
Controlling subcontractors by general contractors 6
Source: Assaf and Al-Hejji (2004)
Table 3.5 Most Important Delay Factors According to Owners
Type Delay factor Rank
Changes Design errors made by designers 1
Government relationship
Excessive bureaucracy in project owner operation 2
Manpower Shortage of labour 3
Manpower Labour skill 3
Financing Financing by contractor during construction 3
Material Shortage of construction materials 6
Financing Owner’s cash problems during construction 6
Changes Errors committed during field construction on site 6
Contractual relationships
Unavailability of professional construction management 6
Source: Assaf and Al-Hejji (2004)
3.1.4 Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis
Al–Momani (2000) undertook a study to determine the cause and extent of
delays in public projects in Jordan. The study investigated the cause of
delays on 130 projects, including residential buildings, office and
administration buildings, schools, medical centres, and communication
45
facilities. The sample population was established by selecting 130 finished
public projects in different regions of Jordan between the years of 1990 and
1997. To investigate why construction delays and overruns occurred, the
following data were obtained from the projects’ records:
Planned duration of contract
Actual completion data
Design changes
Disputes
Notifications
Date of notice to proceed
Delays encountered during construction
Conflicts related to the drawings and specifications
Time extensions
Late delivery of material and equipment
As shown in Table 3.6 below, the frequencies for each delay in five different
construction categories were provided, illustrating that projects were delayed
for various reasons. The study found that the significant causes of delay were
poor design, change orders, weather, site conditions, late delivery, economic
conditions, and increase in quantities. The four main causes of delay were
poor design, change orders and site and economic conditions.
Table 3.6 Summary of the Investigated Projects Frequency of Delay (Al–Momani, 2000)
Facility Type
Po
or
Des
ign
No
Del
ay
Ch
ang
e O
rder
s
Wea
ther
Incr
ease
in
Qu
anti
ty
Lat
e D
eliv
ery
Sit
e
Co
nd
itio
ns
Eco
no
mic
C
on
dit
ion
s
To
tal
House 4 3 1 3 2 0 1 0 14
Office 8 5 5 4 5 1 2 4 34
School 10 14 8 6 3 4 5 2 52
Hospital 6 2 4 2 1 3 0 2 20
Roads 4 6 2 1 1 2 0 0 10
Total 32 24 20 19 12 10 8 8 130
46
3.1.5 A Comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns
Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) presented the results of a survey
undertaken to determine and evaluate the relative importance of the
significant factors causing delays in Hong Kong construction projects. The
survey investigated 83 previously-identified project delay factors from the
authors’ pilot survey, and interviews with clients, consultants and contractors.
The factors were grouped into eight major factor categories: project-related,
client-related, design team-related, contractor-related, materials, labour,
plant/equipment, and external factors. The following is a brief description of
these categories.
1. Project–related factors include delays related to:
Project characteristics
Necessary variations
Communication among various parties
Speed of decision making involving all project teams, and
Ground conditions.
2. Client–related factors include those concerned with:
Client characteristics
Project financing
Client variations and requirements, and
Interim payments to contractors.
3. Design team-related factors consist of:
Design team experience
Project design complexity, and
Mistakes and delays in (producing) design documents.
4. Contractor–related factors comprise those related to :
Contractor experience in planning and controlling the projects
Site management and supervision
Degree of subcontracting, and
Contractor’s cash-flow.
5. Materials factors include :
Shortages
Material changes
47
Procurement programming, and
Proportion of off-site prefabrication.
6. Labour factors encompass:
Labour shortages
Low skill levels
Weak motivation, and
Low productivity.
7. Plant/Equipment factors include:
Shortages
Low efficiency
Breakdowns, and
Wrong selection.
8. External factors comprise those such as:
Waiting time for approval of drawings and test samples of
materials, and
Environmental concerns and restrictions.
The researchers’ analysis of their data concluded that:
1. All three major groups of industry participants felt that poor site
management and supervision, unforeseen ground conditions, slow
speed of decision making involving project teams, client-initiated
variations, and necessary variations of work were the five most
significant sources of construction time overrun.
2. Despite some differing perceptions as to the relative importance of
delay factors suggested by each group of respondents, there was
general agreement between the client and consultants on a set of 10
principal factors, but the contractors only agreed with some of these.
3. The clients and consultants claimed that for the most part, the delays
were attributable to a lack of contractor experience in planning and
monitoring at the site.
Respondents’ rankings of significant delay-causing factors are shown in
Table 3.7.
48
Table 3.7 Respondents’ Rankings of Significant Delay Factors
# Cause of delay Consultants Contractors Clients
1 Poor site management and supervisors
1 3 1
2 Unforeseen ground conditions 2 19 5
3 Client-initiated variations 3
4 Low speed of decision making involving project team
4
5 Necessary variations of work 5 13 6
6 Lack of communication between consultant and contractor
6 9 9
7 Inadequate control over site resource allocation
7 3
8 Delays in subcontractors’ work 8 11 18
9 Inadequate managerial skills 9 2
10 Inadequate contractor experience
10 12 4
11 Inappropriate overall organisational structure
11 7
12 Project construction complexity 12 11
13 Unsuitable management structure and style of contractor
13
14 Low speed of decision making within each project team
14 15 20
15 Low level of communication between client and contractor
15 15
16 Slow information flow between project team members
16 20
17 Unsuitable leadership style of contractor’s manager
17
18 Lack of communication between client and consultant
18 16
19 Poor procurement programming of materials
19 16
20 Delay in design information 20 1
21 Long wait for approval of drawings
2
22 Unrealistic contract duration imposed by client
4 13
23 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents
5
24 Long wait for approval of test samples of materials
6
25 Inadequate design team experience
8
26 Low speed of decision making involving all project teams
10 12
27 Disputes and conflicts 14
28 Shortage of material in market 17 17
29 Client-initiated variations 18 10
49
30 Poor site management and supervision
7
31 Shortage of skilled labour 8
32 Contractor’s deficiencies in planning at preconstruction stage
14
33 Low labour productivity 19
3.1.6 Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional contract
Odeh and Bettaineh (2002) identified the major causes of delay in the
construction industry and assessed the relative importance of these causes
for the traditional adversarial type of contracts from the viewpoint of
construction contractors and consultants. First, a survey questionnaire was
developed to assess the perceptions of contractors and consultants of the
relative importance of construction delay causes. Second, the questionnaire
was distributed to a random sample of contractors and consultants working
on large projects in Jordan. The survey is based on 28 well recognized
causes of delay to which participants were asked to ascribe levels of
importance. The causes were categorized into the following 8 major groups
as shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 – Relative importance index and ranking of delay factor (Odeh and Bettaineh
2002)
Category Factor Contractors Consultants
Index Rank Index Rank
Client
Finance and payment of completed work
3.30 4 3.32 2
Owner Interference 3.51 2 3.21 4
Slow decision-making by owners
3.24 8 3.16 5
Unrealistically imposed contract duration
3.08 13 3.11 6
Contractor
Subcontractors 3.21 9 3.26 3
Site management 3.29 5 2.58 13
Construction methods 3.29 5 2.37 17
Inadequate planning 3.14 10 2.37 17
50
Mistakes during construction 2.56 17 2.74 11
Inadequate contractor experience
3.37 3 3.37 1
Consultant
Contract management 3.10 12 3.00 7
Preparation and approval of drawings
2.32 21 2.21 19
Quality assurance/control 2.06 25 2.11 21
Waiting time for approval of tests and inspections
2.46 18 2.47 15
Material
Quality of material 1.75 26 2.00 23
Shortage in material 3.11 11 2.79 10
Labour and equipment
Labour supply 2.63 16 2.63 12
Labour productivity 3.60 1 2.89 9
Equipment availability and failure
3.25 7 2.42 16
Contract Change orders 2.40 19 1.79 26
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents
3.05 14 2.05 22
Contractual relationship
Major disputes and negotiations
2.94 15 2.16 20
Inappropriate overall organization structure linking all parties to project
2.27 22 2.26 8
Lack of communication between parties
2.38 20 2.53 14
External factors
Weather conditions
2.19
23
1.95 24
Regulatory changes and building code
1.70
27
1.16 28
Problems with neighbours
1.59
28
1.84 27
Unforeseen ground conditions
2.10 24 1.84 25
3.2 SUCCESS FACTORS
A building project is completed through a combination of many events and
interactions, planned or unplanned, over the life of a facility, with changing
participants and processes in a constantly changing environment. Certain
factors are more critical to a project’s success than others. These factors are
called critical project success factors. The term Critical Success Factors in
51
the context of the management of projects was first used by Rockart in 1982
and is defined as those factors predicting success on projects.
Success is defined by Ashley et, al. (1987, p 71) as "results much better than
expected or normally observed in terms of cost, schedule, quality, safety and
participant satisfaction”. The investigation of the success factors of
construction projects has attracted the interest of many researchers and
many studies have been conducted, with the aim of providing contract parties
with valuable insight into how to consistently achieve superior results for their
projects. Although construction projects are by their nature repetitive
activities, each one has its own characteristics and circumstances. The
following section investigates studies that identify critical success factors
leading to successful completion of projects on time, within a planned budget,
in the safest manner, and with the highest quality. These studies differ in the
way they approach the problem and in the way the researchers evaluate
success factors.
3.2.1 Determinants of Construction Project Success
Ashley et al. (1987) offer insight into factors that influence construction
project effectiveness through interviews with construction project personnel
and a literature review of relevant studies. Researchers started with a list of
approximately 2000 success factors from previous studies and construction
management personnel interviews, which they reduced to 46 success factors
grouped into 5 major categories, as follows:
1. Management, organisation, and communication
2. Scope and planning
3. Controls
4. Environmental, economic, political, and social
5. Technical
In order to identify which of these factors had the most significant influence
on construction project success, input from several construction project
personnel was obtained. Each factor was subjectively rated using a range
from no influence (rated with a value of 1) to major influence (rated with a
52
value of 5). From these ratings the top 15 factors were grouped by their
respective categories. From this list, 11 factors were chosen for further
analysis. These are:
1. Planning effort
2. Project manager goal commitment
3. Project team motivation and goal orientation
4. Scope and work definition
5. Project manager capability and experience
6. Safety
7. Control systems
8. Design interface management
9. Risk identification and management
10. Technical uncertainty
11. Legal political environment.
Interviews were conducted to identify factors which:
showed differences between average projects and outstanding
projects;
identified the principal measures of project success; and
Identified factors showing a strong correlation to project outcome.
Eight companies were asked to submit an average project and one
outstanding project. The individuals surveyed were experienced in project
management covering a wide range of project types. Individuals were
selected who had extensive experience with the project.
Response data from these interviews were analysed and the researchers
found that the first seven factors were the most significant in determining
project success. The others factors showed less distinction between average
and outstanding projects, and therefore were probably not as important in
determining the success of a project.
53
Likewise, success criteria were comparatively rated for average and
outstanding projects, revealing that the most important criteria for gauging
the success of a construction project were:
1. Budget
2. Schedule
3. Client satisfaction
4. Functionality
5. Project manager / team satisfaction
6. Contractor satisfaction
A final analysis of the correlation between particular factors and their
influence on the success of a construction project was conducted. Results
showed that differences in construction and design planning efforts best
explained the delineation between average and outstanding projects.
Interpretation of the results further showed that the following factors are most
significant in determining project success:
1. Construction and design planning effort
2. Scope and work definition
3. Project manager goal commitment
4. Project team motivation goal orientation
5. Project manager capabilities and experience
6. Safety
7. Control systems
Most of the critical success factors identified are human-related factors. This
is supported by Nguyen et al (2004) on the study on project success factors
in large construction projects in Vietnam. Among 20 success factors
researched, 5 critical success factors were identified. These were:
1. competent project manager
2. adequate funding until project completion
3. multidisciplinary/competent project team
4. commitment to project
5. availiability of resources.
54
The study also grouped the success factors into one of four components:
1. comfort
2. competence
3. commitment
4. communication
“Comfort” means ensuring that resources, efforts and leadership are well
aligned for the implementation of projects. “Competence” requires having
appropriate technology, experience, and specialities available for the project.
“Commitment” ensures that all parties concerned with the project and all
levels in the management hierarchy of each participating organisation are
willing to manage, plan, design, construct and operate the facility
harmoniously. “Communication” helps clarify and disseminate all necessary
project information and status to all internal and external project
stakeholders.
3.2.2 Critical Success Factors for Construction Projects
Chan (2004) reviewed previous works on empirical studies from seven major
management journals to develop a conceptual framework on critical success
factors (CSFs). Five major groups of independent variables were identified as
crucial to project success. These are shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Factors affecting the success of construction projects (Chan, 2004)
Factors affecting project success
Variables
Project-related
Type of project Nature of project Number of floors of the project Complexity of project Size of project
Walker, (1995); Akinsola et al. (1997); Songer and Molenar (1997); Belout (1998); Chua et al (1999); Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy, (1999); Kumaraswamy and Chan (1999)
Procurement-related Procurement method Tendering method
55
Kumaraswamy and Chan, (1999); Walker (1997); Walker and Vines, (2000).
Project management- related
Communication system Control mechanism Feedback capabilities Planning effort Developing an appropriate organization
structure Implementing an effective safety program Control of sub-contractors works Overall managerial actions.
Hubbard, (1990); Jaselskis and Ashley, (1991); Belout (1998); Chua et al. (1999); Walker and Vines, (2000).
Project participant- related (client, contractor, contractor, sub-contractor, suppliers, manufacturers)
Client’s experience Nature of client Size of client’s organisation Client’s emphasis on low construction cost Client’s emphasis on high quality construction Client’s emphasis on quick construction Client’s ability to approve Client’s ability to make decisions Client’s ability to define roles Client’s contribution to design Client’s contribution to construction Project team leaders’ experience Technical skills of the project team leaders Planning skills of the project team leaders Organizing skills of the project team leaders Coordinating skills of the project team leaders Motivating skills of the project team leaders Project team leaders’ commitment to meet cost,
time and quality Project team leaders’ early and continued
involvement in the project Project team leaders adaptability to changes in
the project plan Project team leaders’ working relationship with
others Support and provision of resources
Chua et al. (1999); Walker, (1995); Chan and Kumaraswamy, (1997); Songer and Molenar, (1997); Belassi and Tukel, (1996); Hassan, (1995).
External-related
Economic environment Social environment Political environment Physical environment Industrial relations environment Technologically advanced
Akinsola et al. (1997); Kaming et al.(1997); Songer and Molenar (1997); Chua et al. (1999); Walker and Vines, (2000).
56
Success in large-scale construction projects is a challenging matter and
depends on several aspects which may include human-related factors,
project management related factors, and factors related to the external
environment. The study by Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor and Stephen O.
Ogunlana (2007) agrees with this assertion, and notes that comprehension,
commitment, competence, and communication are fundamental essentials
for project success.
3.2.3 Checklist of Critical Success Factor for Building Projects
Sanvido et al (1992) defined the success of construction projects as the
degree to which project goals and expectations are met. These goals and
expectations may include technical, financial, educational, social, and
professional aspects. The study by Sanvido et al (1992) covered all the
project phases, including design, construction and maintenance. The
researchers identified the success criteria list for each of the contract parties:
owner, designer, and contractor. Some of the owner success criteria included
being on schedule, being on budget, and return on investment. Examples of
the designer success criteria were client satisfaction, quality architectural
product, well-defined scope, and social acceptability. Finally, contractors’
criteria for measuring success included meeting the schedule, profit, being
under budget (savings obtained for owner and/or contractor), safety, and
client satisfaction.
Furthermore, all three parties held similar viewpoints; for example, all agreed
that the financial reality of doing business and achieving an appropriate
schedule was a means of measuring the success of a project. On the other
hand, there were some unique criteria. For example, the designer was
looking for a project that would increase the level of professional satisfaction
among their employees. Safety was a high priority for the contractor, and the
owner was extremely interested in knowing that the building projects
functioned properly for their intended use and were not affected by long-term
defects or lingering maintenance problems. The study was also concerned
with issues such as valid construction project success factors for building
57
projects and whether these were the same or different in importance for
different types of buildings, such as hospitals and office buildings.
A questionnaire was developed to facilitate data collection by the researchers
and to ensure consistency in the elements examined. The study selected
eight pairs of projects; the two projects in each pair were similar in scope and
proposed by the same sponsor or company. One project was successful in
the eyes of the sponsor and the second was less successful. The
researchers made site visits to the selected projects and interviewed the
principal engineers. The interviewee was asked to rank how successful the
project was, and whether the function (such as facility team, experience,
external constraints, resources, etc) had either positive or negative effects on
the project’s success. They were also asked what the effect was, what
lessons were learned from the project, and what had been done to implement
those lessons in subsequent projects.
The results of the research indicated that the following four factors were
critical:
a) A well-organized, cohesive facility team to manage, plan, construct,
and operate the facility.
b) A series of contracts that allowed and encouraged the various
specialists to behave as a team without a conflict of interest or
differing goals.
c) Experience in the management, planning, design, construction and
operations of similar facilities.
d) Timely, valuable optimization of information from the owner, user,
designer, contractor, and operator in the planning and design phase of
the facility.
Sanvido et al (1992) determined the existence of a set of critical project
success factors that play an important role in the planning, design, and
construction of successful building projects. Parfitt and Sanvido (1993) used
those success factors to develop a checklist that could be used by building
58
professionals to predict the success of a project. An example of this checklist
is:
Facility team:
Have adequate steps been taken to assemble and build a facility team
with the common goals and chemistry appropriate for this project?
Is a sense of respect for the role and services of each team member
evident?
Is there an open and honest communication flow?
Do all team members share a compatible philosophy with the owner of
this project?
3.2.4 Critical Success Factors for Different Project Objectives
Chua et al (1999) identified critical success for construction projects based
on the accumulated knowledge and judgement of experts in the industry.
Sixty-seven success-related factors were considered and grouped under four
main project aspects: project characteristic, contractual arrangements,
project participants, and interactive process.
A questionnaire was developed to facilitate systematic data collection, and
twenty experienced participants with an average of 20 years experience in
the construction project industry participated in the study. The top 10 success
factors based on the averages of budget performance, schedule
performance, quality performance, and overall responses are displayed in
Table 3.10.
The results of the study revealed that experts agree that there are different
sets of construction success factors for different objectives. They determined
that the probability of project success can be increased if the inherent
characteristics of the project are thoroughly understood, appropriate
contractual arrangements are adopted, a competent management team is
assigned, and a sound monitoring and control system is established
59
Table 3.10 Critical Success Factors for Different Project Objectives: (Chua et al, 1999)
Success factors Budget Schedule Quality Overall
Adequacy of plan and specification
1 1 1 1
Constructability 2 2 2 2
Project manager commitment and involvement
8 3 4 3
Realistic obligations and clear objectives
3 6 5 4
Project manager competency 5 4 6 4
Contractual motivation and incentive
9 5 10 6
Site inspection - 10 3 7
Construction control meetings - 8 7 8
Formal communication - - 8 9
Economic risks 3 - - 9
3.2.5 Success Factors In the Construction Process
Cooper et al (2001) reviewed literature identifying success factors on generic
projects and construction projects (Avots, 1969; Baker et.al., 1988; Barnes
and Wearne, 1993; Beale and Freeman, 1991; Bedelian, 1996; Bentley and
Raftery, 1992; Cash and Fox, 1992; Chan, 1992; Chua et.al.,1997; Clarke,
1999; CRT, 1995; Graham, 1988; Hensey, 1991; Hughes, 1986; Kothari,
1986; Pinto and Slevin, 1987; Pinto and Slevin, 1988). The research
identified several success factors for the construction process as follows:
Clarity/ Definition of project objective
To state clearly the expected end result, with consultation with the
related parties. Although each party might have different specific goals
in mind for the project, they must spell out their goals.
To state the communicated and defined goal to all parties.
To state the clarified time and cost objectives.
Scope of project
60
To state the general direction and define the client’s requirement.
To present a clear design brief with minimal subsequent changes. A
brief must be exact and owned by the client at the highest (strategic)
level within the client and project organisations.
Project manager
The Project Manager is the key person in the project. They must
demonstrate multi-dimensional abilities including interpersonal,
technical and administrative skills.
The most important element is that the project manager must clearly
understand their role as project leader, clearly defining their extent of
involvement, and the authority and control they exercise over
personnel.
Personality – the project manager must have a personality which
encourages respect from team players, associates and peers.
Leadership – the project manager should have leadership skills and
be able to apply competent managerial skills. The project manager
should have the ability to persuade other members of the group to
their view, and be able to resolve conflict between parties.
Organizing – the project manager should be responsible for
organizing, selecting and defining the responsibilities of the project
team.
Coordinating – the project manager should identify interfaces between
the activities of the functional departments, subcontractors, and other
project contributors.
Controlling – the project manager should be responsible for monitoring
progress, identifying problems, communicating the status of interfaces
to contributors, and initiating and co-coordinating corrective action.
Motivating – the project manager should motivate the project team to
perform their duties, and also convince the project team to co-operate
with each other.
Technical knowledge and experience – the project manager must
possess good technical knowledge and experience, since most of the
project is highly technical.
61
Project Team Commitment
All participants must understand and be dedicated and strongly
committed to achieve, maintain and fulfil project goals.
All participants must be committed to the concept of project planning
and control and must be able to put the concept into practice. They
must understand the project management process, its purpose and
values, and be committed to following the steps and necessary
procedures.
Capability
All participants must possess adequate capabilities, including skills
and experience.
All participants must retain appropriate interpersonal skills.
Cooperation
All participants must maintain a good working relationship between the
client, the project team members and stakeholders.
All participants must sustain a healthy work attitude.
Planning
The plan, or schedule, should be prepared as early as possible.
The plan should be prepared with as much detail as possible,
including during the design process and throughout its phases. The
detail required includes individual actions for project implementation,
the party responsible for each action (if known), and the technical
standard required.
The plan should be realistic; it should identify the appropriate workload
for the project team.
The plan must be updated regularly in order to keep pace with the
project’s development.
The team should be prepared to re-plan the job schedule to
accommodate frequent changes on dynamic projects.
The team should incorporate detailed planning guidelines for
termination.
Control
Schedule control – the project’s managers and supervisors should
jointly agree on intermediate milestones and build the detailed
62
schedule around these. Successful project teams mark the
achievement of milestones formally (for example by celebrating) in
order to break the monotony of a long schedule into easily managed
portions.
Costs control – focus on tracking the money spent. This requires
detailed actual costs, and one of the best monitoring aids is a plot of
plan versus actual costs on a cash-flow curve, for example, an earned
– value analysis system.
Quality control – focus on ensuring the project reaches the agreed and
designed level of quality. It must be closely scrutinised during the
entire process.
Methods of control include regular meetings and day-to-day reports
etc.
Appropriate size of work package
Divide the project tasks into appropriate sizes and identify the relevant
parities responsible for each task.
Maintain the appropriate level of staff for the amount of work that
needs to be done.
Communication and information management
Instigate and maintain adequate communication channels among the
project team.
Ensure there is some way to manage the flow of information. The
suggested methods of transferring information should include
drawings, manuals, meetings and letters.
Top management support
Provide the necessary resources, authority and power for performing
the project.
Environment
Consider the natural environment e.g. weather.
Consider sustainability, e.g. supply of materials.
Consider the political environment, e.g. the legal requirements of the
regulatory authorities.
Health and safety
Ensure legislative health and safety requirements are considered.
63
3.2.6 Critical Success Factors over the stages in the project life
cycle
Slevin and Pinto (1986, 1987) identified ten critical factors relating to project
implementation success. The ten factors are:
1. Project Mission. The initial clarity of goals and the general direction
2. Top Management Support. Willingness of top management to
provide the necessary resources and authority/power for project
success.
3. Project Schedule/Plan. A detailed specification of the individual
action steps required for project implementation.
4. Client Consultation. Communication, consultation, and action on
behalf of all impacted parties.
5. Personnel. Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary
personnel for the project team.
6. Technical Tasks. Availability of the required technology and expertise
to accomplish the specific technical steps.
7. Client Acceptance. The act of “selling” the final project to its ultimate
intended users.
8. Monitoring and Feedback. Timely provision of comprehensive
control information at each stage in the implementation process.
9. Communication. The provision of an appropriate network and
necessary data to all key actors in the project implementation.
10. Trouble-Shooting. Ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations
from plan.
Pinto and Prescott (1988) have investigated the relationship between the
project life cycle and behavioural issues. The initial stage of
conceptualisation refers to the time frame at which a strategic need has been
recognised by top management. The second stage is planning, whereby
formal plans to accomplish the initial goals are established. The third stage is
execution, during which the work of the project is performed. The fourth and
final stage is the termination stage. Once the project is completed, resources
assigned to the project must be released, personnel from the project team
64
are usually reassigned to other duties, and the project is transferred to its
intended users.
Pinto and Prescott (1988) used a stepwise regression on the critical success
factors at each of the four stages in the project life cycle. The results
demonstrated that though there is empirical justification for several of the
previously listed critical success factors, the relative importance of various
critical success factors are subject to change at different phases of the
project implementation process. The finding implies that future use of critical
success factor analysis and implementation, regardless of the area to be
examined, may be contingent on other organisational phenomena, such as
project (or organisational) life cycle. Further, the practicing project manager
would be in a better position to assist in the implementation of a project,
given an increased awareness of the factors most critical to success at
specific life cycle stages.
3.3 CONCLUSION
DELAY FACTORS
The literature review of the delay factors was used to build a comprehensive
list of delay causes. It was noted in Table 3.2 that the Assaf and Al-Hejji
(2004) study has the largest number of delay causes (73 causes). These
were grouped into nine major groups: project-related factors, owner-related
factors, contractor related factors, consultant-related factors, design team-
related factors, materials, equipment, labour and external factors. Based on
the preliminary studies and discussion with owners, contractors and
engineers, some of the delay factors listed by Assaf & Al-Hejji are not
common, not applicable, have a rather low effect on project duration and
were not seen as a determinant factor of project delay in Brunei’s
construction industry.
Odeh and Bettaineh (2002) identified the major causes of delay in
construction industry building projects using 28 well recognized construction
delay factors. These causes were categorised into the following eight major
65
groups: client-related factor, contractor, consultant, material, labour and
equipment, contract, contractual relationship and external factors. The
causes of delay identified by Odeh and Bettaineh (2002) were chosen for this
research. Firstly, Odeh and Bettaineh identified the major causes of delay in
the construction industry and assessed the relative importance of these
causes for the traditional adversarial type of contracts. Secondly, the factors
identified by Odeh and Bettaineh are more common to building construction
processes. The study is also supported by other researchers such as
Shamas-Ur-Rehman Toor and Stephen O.Ogunlana ( 2008) and Nguyen et
al (2004). The 28 causes of delay were seen to fit this research study as the
research is focused on the building construction process for the traditional
adversarial type of contracts. These delays are also common to Brunei’s
construction industry.
SUCCESS FACTORS
Ashley et al. (1987) compiled 2000 success factors based on informal
interviews of construction professionals. The list was reduced to 46 factors
and grouped into 5 major categories. These are: management, organisation
and communication; scope and planning; controls; environmental, economic,
political and social; and technical. A further analysis by construction project
personnel to identify which of these factors had the most significant influence
on construction project success reduced the list to 11 factors. A final analysis
identified the 7 most significant factors in determining project success.
There are number of studies on success factors in the construction industry.
Chua et.al (1999), Cooper (2001), Alkathami (2004), and Jha and Lyer
(2008) adopted the success factors identified by Ashley et al (1989). It can be
seen that critical success factors have been predominantly contributing
towards enhancing the performance level and success of projects.
Due to its comprehensive, detailed descriptions, and because much of the
other research was based upon it in some way (Chua et.al (1999), Cooper
(2001), Alkathami (2004), Jha and Lyer (2008), Nguyen et al (2004),
Shamas-ur-Rehmen Toor and Stephen O.Ogunlana (2008)), the seven most
66
significant success factors in determining project success identified by Ashley
et al. (1987) have been chosen for further investigation in this study. These
success factors are:
1. Organisational planning effort
2. Project manager goal commitment
3. Project team motivation
4. Project manager technical capabilities
5. Scope and work definition
6. Control systems
7. Safety
67
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter investigates current research approaches with a view to
selecting the most appropriate methodology for the current research project,
including the research strategy and justification of the methodology, the
procedure used, and sample selection. This research study:
requires a methodology to investigate variables and scales to
represent happenings;
uses statistical analysis for personal interpretation; and
seeks to discover knowledge through the scientific search for
cause and effect.
The nature of this research suggests a quantitative methodology is most
appropriate based on the above research requirements. A quantitative
methodology also aligns with the fact that the majority of the research
undertaken in construction management, engineering and property uses
quantitative methodologies.
4.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY
The term research refers to the development a new body of knowledge.
Scientific research refers to the systematic, controlled, rigorous, empirical
and critical investigation of a hypothetical proposition about a presumed
relation in order to find the solution to a problem or discover and interpret
new knowledge (McCuen, 1996). McCuen (1996) describes scientific
research as being the investigation of phenomena via practices consistent
with the method of science.
68
Scientific investigation and the verification of beliefs about real world
phenomena involve empirical research based on the belief that all knowledge
originates in experience (Stone, 1978). The research presented in this thesis
deals with facts that have objective reality, and based on this empirical
research is the process used in this study. The empirical scientific research
cycle (McCuen, 1996) in Figure 4.1 shows the basic steps for the empirical
study of a phenomenon.
Figure 4.1 The Empirical Scientific Research Cycle (adopted from McCuen
1996 and Stone 1978)
Observation: an informed and critical questioning of an existing
phenomenon leading to a problem statement and the research
question.
OBSERVATIONS Research Questions and
Problem
HYPHOTHESIS
EXPERIMENTATION Design and Observations
INDUCTION Conclusion
69
Hypothesis: a formal expression of a preconceived factual
relationship which provides a tentative explanation or solution to
the problem.
Experimentation: the design of the study leading to a systematic
and controlled testing of the hypothesis.
Induction: a generalisation of the experimental results to a formal
statement of the theory.
Empirical research has a number of different approaches to
research strategies. An example of empirical strategies is shown
in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Empirical Research Strategies (adopted from Stone 1978)
Yin (2003) points out that a research strategy is not distinguished by the
following hierarchy:
Case studies are appropriate for the explanatory phase of an
investigation
Surveys are appropriate for the descriptive phase
Experiments are the only way of developing explanations for
casual inquiries
Field Experiment
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Field Study
Simulation
Laboratory Experiment
Case Study
Sample Survey
70
But by conditions such as the:
Type of research question posed
Extent of control that an investigator has over actual behavioural
events
Degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events.
The research questions for this study are:
1. What are the real causes of project delays in the Brunei building
construction industry?
2. How are these delay factors correlated to critical success factors
within the construction industry?
The type of research question and the variables involved in the research will
differentiate the various strategies available to the researcher. Table 4.1
shows the conditions for various research strategies.
Historical research is concerned with historical events or an approach to
contemporary events or problems. Historical research can also be used to
help solve problems through an examination of what has happened in the
past (Bennet, 1991). The case study examines contemporary events,
especially when the relevant behaviour of the phenomenon being studied
cannot be manipulated, as it can in experiments. Unlike historical research,
the case study has two sources of evidence: direct observation and
systematic interviewing.
71
Table 4.1 Relevant Situations for Different Research Strategies (Source: adopted from
Yin, 2003
Strategy Form of research question
Requires control over behavioural events
Focuses on contemporary events
Experiment Survey Archival analysis (e.g. economic study) History Case study
How, why Who, what, where, how many, how much Who, what, where, how many, how much How, why How, why
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes/no
No
Yes
The case study was identified to be the most appropriate methodology to
answer the research questions identified in Chapter 1. This is due to its ability
to deal with a variety of evidence such as artefacts, observations, documents
and interviews. To conduct the research, the data collection method selected
is the survey, which will identify the delay factors and examine the correlation
of the critical success factors and the delay factors. Finally a group
consensus Delphi method is selected to rank the most critical success factors
for Brunei building construction to improve project performance.
4.2 THE SURVEY STRATEGY
The survey is a very popular method of gathering information as it allows
inputs from various sources such as clients, key informants, and target
populations, and it helps to build consensus solutions (McKillip, 1986). The
survey strategy involves research in which:
Sample surveys were selected to represent a known population.
The sampling survey allows the researcher to generalise a study’s
result to a known population.
Data are collected directly from respondents using a systematic
technique (e.g. questionnaire or interviews);
72
The researcher manipulates no independent variables;
The setting in which data is obtained is natural;
Responses of subjects are assumed to be largely unaffected by
the context in which they are elicited;
Influences of confounding variables are controlled statistically; and
The purposes of the research may range from exploration of
phenomena to hypothesis testing.
Instruments should be initially piloted to small numbers of respondents to
verify whether the questions are easy to understand, appropriate to the
research topic, unambiguous (Fellows and Liu, 2003), and to gain some idea
of the time required to administer the questionnaire. It is also important to get
feedback and input on other important issues that may be worthy of
consideration, that the initial instrument may have missed. This also gives the
researcher an indication of whether the instrument is measuring the right
concept, hence its validity and reliability.
The advantages of survey strategies (as adopted from Stone, 1978) are;
The sample is chosen in such a way as to allow for generalisations
to a defined population;
Results are accurate because of a large sample size and generally
low sampling error;
Random sampling procedures reduce or eliminate problems of
sample bias;
Data collection takes place in a ‘natural ‘ setting;
Data is obtained directly from respondents;
Surveys often yield data that suggests new hypotheses;
If mailed questionnaires are used to collect data, the cost of data
per subject is relatively low (compared, for example, to interview
data); and
A variety of systematic data collection methods (e.g interviews,
questionnaires and observation) can be used alone or in
combination.
73
Disadvantages include:
Decreased willingness and refusal of people to respond to sample
survey probes, because of suspicion, fear and other forms of
resistance;
Most surveys are ‘one shot’; as a result their capacity for
generating data to test causal connections among variables is
limited;
In terms of total costs, the sample survey is an extremely
expensive research strategy because of large administrative and
personal costs;
The standardised response formats of many sample survey
measures (e.g. questionnaire and structured interviews) may force
respondents to subscribe to statements they don’t fully endorse;
If questionnaires are used to collect data, the proportion of
returned questionnaires may be low.
Two types of surveys (other than interviews) were used as data collection
instruments in research undertaken by Ashley et al (1987) and Assaf et al
(1995). The target populations interviewed or surveyed were either related to
a specific project (as in the research by Ashley et al., 1987) or came from
general experience (as in the research by Assaf et al., 1995). In this study it
is proposed to use both of these data collection techniques, thereby creating
two types of surveys. A specific survey will be created to collect data from
owners, engineers or contractors - and a general survey will be used to
gather information regarding individuals’ experiences with projects generally.
The specific survey will obtain recollections of exact field experiences from
the project engineers. The target populations for this survey were owners and
contractors, or their representatives who were involved in Brunei building
construction projects. These projects must have been nearly completed, or
completed within the last seven years, and in order to gather necessary
technical data, respondents were required to be project managers.
74
The second version of the survey is the general survey which will gather
opinions in a manner similar to the specific project survey. The target
population is any engineer who worked or has been working in the Brunei
construction field for at least the past ten years, and owners who have
experience in building construction projects.
4.3 CONSENSUS-FORMING TECHNIQUES
The methodology in this research requires the use of consensus-forming
techniques. This section of the thesis will briefly outline the varieties of
consensus-forming techniques and present the rationale for the use of the
Delphi technique.
The opinions of experts are needed as an input in many policy arenas in
which objective data is unavailable and subjective judgements play a
significant role. Given that individual experts may hold widely varying
opinions, it is logical to seek a consensus of opinions from a panel of experts.
The value of consensus-forming techniques is based on the assumption that
the opinions of a group of experts will be more accurate than the opinions of
individual experts, correcting for individual bias and misinformation. Group
consensus can be obtained in a variety of ways, three of which will be
discussed here. These are:
The interacting group process;
The nominal group process; and
The Delphi process.
4.3.1. Interacting Group Process
According to Delbecq (1968), the interacting approach to committee decision-
making is defined as a group meeting in which all communication acts take
place between members with minimal control or formal structuring. The
process of decision-making in the interacting group is:
1. Unstructured group discussion to obtain and pool ideas of
participants;
2. Majority voting on priorities by hand counting.
75
4.3.2. The Nominal Group Process
Originally developed as an organisational planning technique by Delbecq,
Van de Ven and Gustafson in 1975, the nominal group technique is a
consensus planning tool that helps prioritise issues (Delbecq et al, 1986). In
the nominal group technique, participants are brought together for a
discussion session led by a moderator. The nominal group technique has
been used as an alternative to the focus group and the Delphi techniques. It
presents more structure than the focus group, but still takes advantage of the
synergy created by group participants.
As its name suggests, the nominal group technique is only nominally a group,
since the rankings are provided on an individual basis. The nominal group
technique involves a process similar to the Delphi method (Dalkey, 1968)
with the objective of the technique being the exploration of ideas for
decisions from a team of experts (Adler and Ziglio, 1996). The prime
difference between NGT and the Delphi technique is that communication
does take place between participating individuals within the NGT method. As
well, NGT separates out the process of independent ideas generation,
structured feedback, evaluation and aggregation of opinions. It increases
individual participation. Detailed research by Gustafson et al (1973) showed
NGT was superior to Delphi by demonstrating the following advantages:
Voting was anonymous
There were opportunities for equal participation of group members
Distractions (communication noise) inherent in other group
methods were minimised.
The nominal group process is a structured group meeting in which individuals
work in the presence of others, but do not verbally interact for a period of
time. The nominal process follows a prescribed sequence of problem-solving
steps (Delbecq and Van de Ven, 1971), namely:
76
1. Silent generation of ideas in writing;
2. Fixed cyclic order of presentation and recording of independent
ideas on a blackboard or flip-chart;
3. Discussion and clarification of ideas; and
4. Independent ranking of priorities.
The use of face-to-face meetings to reach agreement sometimes causes
problems because:
A senior member of the group (e.g. a boss or person with a
dominant personality) could sway opinions in a manner
inconsistent with the information presented.
People could be unwilling to change opinions when stated publicly
People could grandstand or posture by sticking to beliefs that may
not have been appropriate, and so show they are actively engaged
in the process.
4.3.3 The Delphi Process
The unique strengths of Delphi as a forecasting, planning, and decision
making tool sustains the popularity of this technique. It relies on a structured,
yet indirect, approach to quickly and efficiently elicit responses relating to
group learning and forecasting from experts who bring knowledge, authority,
and insight to the problem, while simultaneously promoting learning among
panel members. Helmer (1983) agreed that Delphi is a technique frequently
used for eliciting consensus from within a group of experts that has
application in reliability and has many advantages over other methods of
panel decision making. Helmer (1983) agrees with Linstone and Turoff
(1975) in regards to the application of Delphi. Helmer (1983), Linstone and
Turoff (1975), and Dalkey (1972) all found that one of the major advantages
of using Delphi as a group response is that consensus will emerge with one
representative opinion from the experts.
Dalkey (1967) identified the basic characteristics of the Delphi technique as
anonymity, and controlled feedback from the interaction and statistical group
response. These characteristics are as follows:
77
1. Anonymity – the responses from questionnaires or other
communication, from specific members of the panel, are not identified
and anonymity is maintained. Anonymity reduces the effects of
dominant individuals, which often is a concern when using group-
based processes to collect and synthesize information.
2. Controlled feedback from the interaction – controlled feedback allows
interaction with a large reduction in discord among panel members.
Multiple interactions among group members in several stages result in
the subjects becoming more oriented to problem-solving, offering their
opinions more insightfully, and minimizing the effects of
communication in a group process.
3. Statistical group response – the group opinion is defined as a
statistical average of the final opinions of the individual members, with
the opinion of every group member reflected in the final group
response. The use of statistical analysis will reduce the potential of
group pressure for conformity; analysis can ensure the results of the
generated opinions of the individual members are well represented in
the final iteration.
The Delphi technique, due to its flexibility, is best suited to the exploration of
issues involving a mixture of scientific evidence and social values (Webler et
al, 1991). Mohapatra et al (1984) suggest that a Delphi study is usually
directed to four broad categories of issues. These are:
Normative issues such as ‘goal setting’;
Narrative issues such as ‘problem statements’;
Predictive issues such as forecasting occurrence of new events and
forecasting point values and trends of key parameters; and
Suggestive issues such as developing causal models and formulating
new policies.
78
Many different types of Delphi survey techniques have been developed.
However they have several common distinguishing features:
They elicit the views of panels of experts;
They employ an iterative process of summarising, averaging and
recycling panel members’ views to encourage convergence on a
consensus view;
Participants are given the opportunity to revise earlier answers in light
of the general opinions expressed by the group as a whole;
Information is collected by questionnaire and does not involve
interviews or discussions; and
Members of the panel are guaranteed anonymity.
The process for each type of the Delphi is essentially the same, and involves
an interaction between members of the group (Delphi panel) and researcher,
with the researcher acting as facilitator. Theoretically the process can be
continuously iterated until consensus is achieved at the desired level. The
sufficient time required to collect information and reach a consensus in many
cases is up to three iterations (Worthen and Sanders, 1987; Brooks, 1979).
Fowles (1978) describes the following ten steps for the Delphi Method:
1. Formation of a team to undertake and monitor a Delphi on a given
subject.
2. Selection of one or more panels to participate in the exercise.
Customarily, the panellists are experts in the area to be investigated.
3. Development of the first round Delphi questionnaire.
4. Testing the questionnaire for proper wording (e.g. ambiguities,
vagueness)
5. Transmission of the first questionnaires to the panellists.
6. Analysis of the first round responses
7. Preparation of the second round questionnaires (and possible testing).
8. Transmission of the second round questionnaires to the panellists.
9. Analysis of the second round responses (Steps 7 to step 9 are
reiterated as long as desired or necessary to achieve stability in the
results.)
79
10. Preparation of the report by the analysis team to present the
conclusions of the exercise.
Brooks (1979) included an additional step prior to beginning the procedure to
assess the willingness of potential panel members to participate in the study.
Several steps identified by Brooks (1979) in using the Delphi Technique are:
1. Identifying the panel of experts.
2. Determining the willingness of individuals to serve on the panel.
3. Gathering individual input on the specific issue and then compiling it
into basic statements.
4. Analysing data from the panel.
5. Compiling information on a new questionnaire and sending this to
each panel member for review.
6. Analysing the new input and returning to the panel members the
distribution of the responses.
7. Asking each panel member to study the data and evaluate their own
position based on the responses from the group. When individual
responses vary significantly from that of the group norm, the individual
is asked to provide a rationale for their differing viewpoint while
limitations are placed on the length of the remarks in order to keep
responses brief.
8. Analysing the input, and sharing the minority supporting statements
with the panel. Panel members are again asked to review their
position and if not within a specified range, to justify the position with a
brief statement.
The Delphi method avoid the pitfalls of face-to-face interaction, such as
group conflict and individual dominance which make it a popular technique
for data collection where more individuals are needed than can effectively
interact in a face to face exchange. Linstone and Turoff (1975) see an
important role for the Delphi method, where the number of specialists is too
large and too little time and funds are available to organise group meetings to
effectively interact in a face to face exchange.
80
The Delphi method is beneficial where there is no historical data of adequate
communication. The strength of the Delphi method to collect data from
individuals or relevant specialists may contribute diverse backgrounds with
respect to expertise and experience. It is also one of the best known methods
for dealing with open ended and creative aspects of a problem because it
motivates independent thought and gradual formation of group solutions. The
technique is also relatively inexpensive and simple. Design, implementation
and analyses of a Delphi do not need advanced mathematical skills. Due to
its inexpensive techniques, it is appropriate to use where time and cost make
frequent group meetings unfeasible.
Another of the strengths of Delphi is its flexibility to allow individuals to
respond at times suitable to them. Where a Delphi study consists of a large
number of statements, more time is required to complete the questionnaires.
Delbecq et al. (1975), Ulschak (1983), and Ludwig (1994) recommend that
administration of a Delphi study requires a minimum of 45 days. Delbecq et
al. (1975) recommend the time required between iterations to respond to
each round of Delphi is two weeks. This flexibility allows individuals, who may
be restricted by daily schedules and geographic location, the opportunity to
respond at times available to them. There are many additional advantages.
The technique is simple to use. Advance mathematical skills are not
necessary for its design, implementation, and analysis. Because the Delphi
provides confidentiality, many barriers to communication are overcome.
Some of these barriers are reluctance to state unpopular views, to disagree
with one’s associates, or to modify previously stated positions (Barnes,
1987).
However the Delphi study also has some limitations. These weakness
include conceptual and methodological inadequacies, poor selection of
expert panels, potential for sloppy execution, poorly designed questionnaires,
little feedback, questionable consensus, unreliable results analysis, and
instability of responses among consecutive Delphi rounds. Another
disadvantage of Delphi is that ‘it is difficult to establish the true subjective
81
probabilities of each panellist, something that can be done only over a long
sequence of identical experiments, the very idea of which is incompatible
with the justification of the Delphi in the first place.’ Also, panellists can
inadvertently or deliberately promote desired outcomes or influence future
decisions thus raising questions about the use of group consensus as a
stopping criterion (some of these weakness are inherent in other qualitative
forecasting techniques as well).
Another disadvantage of the Delphi study is the lack of criteria for
distinguishing an expert from a novice and the lack of sufficient evidence that
the judgement of experts is more reliable than that of novices or that group
opinion is always superior to individual opinion. According to Linstone and
Turoff (1975), the virtual problems do not affect the utility of Delphi but rather
how to select the respondent group. Fortune (1992) suggests one of the
problems arise when the panel members chosen are so close to the problem
that they cannot see the future; this may result in Delphi failure, as the panel
members may not be able to see the vision or the big picture in which they
are involved.
Linstone and Turoff (1975) identified the Delphi technique as one form of
anonymously eliciting the opinions of experts concerning events, and the
reasoning behind the opinions. Sackman (1972) identified important
shortcomings in the Delphi technique which were important in considering
this form of elicitation. These shortcomings are:
Information and questions provided to experts needed to be
carefully reviewed to ensure objectivity.
Difficulty in summarising and presenting a common evaluation
scale to a group that could be interpreted uniformly by the experts.
Benefits of experts participating in active dialogue may be missed.
Difficult and time consuming to explore disagreements between
experts.
The shortcoming and weakness of the Delphi technique to be considered
when using Delphi method are:
82
Potential for low response rates
Consumption of large blocks of time
.Potential for moulding opinions
Potential for identifying general statements vs specific topic
related information.
In the Delphi process, data analysis can involve both qualitative and
quantitative data. Qualitative data from the Delphi studies deal with open-
ended questions to solicit subjects’ opinions, which are conducted in the
initial iteration. The iterations’ technique is to identify and hopefully achieve
the desired level of consensus as well as any changes of judgements among
panellists. Hasson, Keeney, & McKenna (2000) note that the major statistics
used in Delphi studies are measures of central tendency (mean, median, and
mode) and level of dispersion (standard deviation and inner-quartile range) in
order to present information concerning the collective judgements of
respondents. Generally the use of median and mode are favoured. However
in some cases, as reported by Murray and Jaman (1987), the mean is also
workable.
4.3.4. Comparisons of the Different Processes
Riggs (1983) argues that group decision-making with interactive groups
inhibits creative thinking. The nature of inhibiting influences, which act to
reduce the performance of interacting groups in problem solving, seem to
relate to the following (Taylor et al, 1958):
The inevitable presence within most organizational groups of
status incongruities, wherein low-status participants may be
inhibited and go along with opinions expressed by high-status
participants, even though they feel their opinions are superior,
The influence of dominant personality types upon the group; and
Tendencies to reach speedy decisions before all problem
dimensions have been considered due to meeting time constraints.
83
The nominal group process facilitates creative decision-making more than
conventional interacting groups. This is due a number of characteristics of
nominal groups (Delbecq and Van de Van, 1971). Nominal group techniques:
Provide each individual with the time and opportunity to engage in
reflection, and force participants to record their thoughts; and
Allow all participants to share in the opportunity to influence the
direction of group decision outcomes.
The Delphi process tends to avoid the pitfalls of an interacting group and,
simultaneously, contains most of the positive characteristics of the nominal
group process. The major differences between nominal and Delphi
approaches to decision-making are:
Delphi respondents are anonymous to one another, while nominal
group members become acquainted with one another; and
Nominal groups meet face-to-face around a table, while Delphi
respondents are physically distant and never meet.
All communications among respondents in the Delphi process occur via
written questionnaires. In nominal groups, communications occur directly
between members and the leader.
4.4 DELPHI METHOD - RANKING THE CRITICAL SUCCESS
FACTORS
One of the main objectives of this research study is to rank the most
important critical success factors for Brunei building construction projects.
This requires an expert panel to perform the ranking. The Delphi method
provides the researcher with a flexible and adaptable tool to gather and
analyse data. The Delphi technique is adopted as it is beneficial and useful
for the researcher for the following reasons:
1. The problem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques but
can benefit from subjective judgements on a collective basis.
2. The individuals needed to contribute to the examination of a broad or
complex problem have no history of adequate communication in this
84
area, and may represent diverse backgrounds with respect to
experience and expertise.
3. Delphi is a qualitative technique that achieves group consensus while
avoiding the hazards of face-to-face interactions, such as group
conflict and individual dominance (Rowe et al 1991). As the expert
panel are mainly composed of policy makers, this is a very important
reason for electing to use the Delphi method. In the governments of
developing countries, there are inter-ministerial, personal and
departmental rivalries (e.g. central bank governor, finance minister,
and planning agencies are often conflicting, rather than cooperating,
forces) (Alam,1990).
4. Time and cost make frequent group meetings unfeasible. Waissbluth
and Gotari (1990) undertook research in Mexico using the Delphi
technique to overcome some of the shortcomings observed in
planning, and offer a viable alternative to national or sectoral planners.
This study showed that high-ranking officials and researchers can be
part of the planning process without giving up much of their valuable
time.
5. Disagreements among individuals are so severe or politically
unpalatable that the communication process must be referred and/or
anonymity assured. In the Delphi process, experts give their opinion
without publicly admitting that they have done so, thus encouraging
them to express a more personal viewpoint rather than a cautious
institutional position (Masser and Foley, 1987).
6. The heterogeneity of the participants must be preserved to assure the
validity of the results, i.e. avoidance of domination by quantity or by
strength of personality (Linstone and Turoff, 1975).
7. Finally, Delphi is one of the most popular forecasting techniques for
technological and industry-wide forecasting and it is estimated that
90% of technological forecasts and studies are based on Delphi
(Yuxiang et al, 1990).
The design and implementation of the Delphi process for this research
considers two areas: subject selection and the time frames prior to initiating
85
the study. Additional precautions concern low response rates, unintentionally
guiding feedback, and surveying panellists about their limited knowledge of
the topic rather than soliciting their expert judgements.
Therefore, the Delphi process designed for this research is as follows:
Identify a team to undertake and monitor a Delphi on a given subject.
Select one or more panels - whose consensus opinions are sought - to
participate in the exercise. Typically, the panellists are experts in the
area to be investigated.
Determine the willingness of individuals to serve as a panel.
Develop the first round Delphi questionnaire.
Test the questionnaire for proper wording (e.g, ambiguities,
vagueness).
Compile information for the first questionnaire and send this to the
panellists.
Analyse the input of the first round responses and return these to the
panel members.
Have each member of the panel rate or rank the result from the first
questionnaire. This is the second round questionnaire.
Analyse the second round responses (another round of questionnaires
are reiterated as long as desired or necessary to achieve stability in
the results).
Present the result of questionnaire two in the form of questionnaire
three showing the level of consensus. Where the individual differs
substantially from the group, and chooses to remain so, the
respondent should provide a brief reason or explanation.
Preparation of the report by the analysis team to present the
conclusions of the exercise.
Experts are qualified through their knowledge skill, experience, training or
education; therefore, criteria used to select the experts for this research are
as follows:
Experience with and contribution to the local and other regions of the
construction industry;
86
Knowledge of local capabilities;
Some knowledge of critical success factors;
Experience of construction and economic activities.
4.5 THE RESEARCH PROCEDURE
The research procedure for this thesis includes the following:
A clear definition of the problem being studied
The research objectives of the study
Justification of the research and description of the research
Identification of issues relating to the research investigations
Study of the components and elements that comprise the
investigation
Description of methodology for the research investigation.
Figure 4.3 presents the main activities of this investigation which provides an
explanation of the research process based on the research plan.
Figure 4.3 Research Procedure
Analysis and
Discussion
Analysis and discussion of policies ranking
Conclusion, Recommendation and
Further research
Analysis and discussion of the survey
Critical Success Factors
Problem Identification and Research Questions
Delphi and experts’ opinion (stage 3)
Survey of local construction industry (stage 2)
Extensive literature and data collection (stage 1)
87
4.5.1 Stage 1: Review Literature
The aim of the literature review is to examine previous research and identify
the gaps in current knowledge. This review determined the context of the
research study and positioned this work relative to previous research. It also
assisted in the conceptualisation of the research areas sufficiently to develop
the main focus of the research, influence the research design and generate
specific hypotheses to be tested.
The activities included in this stage are:
To develop a clear understanding of the research study
Identify and describe the problem being studied
To consolidate and extract information from a preliminary literature
review for the main areas of investigation including critical delay
factors, critical success factors, building construction, construction
in developing countries and policies
Formulate the study questions based on the problems identified
and create a description of the research questions and objectives.
The sources of information for collection of data for this activity
include journal publications, books, magazine articles, international
agendas and reports.
Develop the methodology for the research.
4.5.2 Stage 2: Data Collection and Survey
The second stage of the research will investigate the delay factors in Brunei’s
building construction projects. It will also investigate the correlation of the
delay factors with the critical success factors found in the literature. This
includes the assessment from the knowledge gained from an extensive
literature review and the data collection from the survey.
Stage 2 includes the following activities:
Further investigation of literature relevant to the research.
Collection of data.
Identification of delay factors.
88
Piloting: conduct a pilot survey in the early stages of the study in
order to verify the quality and effectiveness of the questionnaire for
both specific and general surveys. These pilot surveys intend to
get feedback that could help the researcher improve the data
collection strategy and also measure the exact time required to
complete all questions, or identify any other problematic issues
with the survey’s format. The feedback received from the pilot
survey is used to improve the final product.
Sampling - random sampling is the purest form of probability
sampling. Each member of the population has an equal chance of
being selected. Random sampling was undertaken to select the
participants (owners, contractors and engineers) for this survey.
Conduct the specific survey. A targeted survey was designed to
obtain the recollections of field experiences from the engineers.
The target population for this survey are owners, contractors and
consultants. These projects must have been nearly completed, or
completed within the last 7 years.
Analyse the survey result using reflective index and Spearman’s
rank correlation.
Identify critical delay factors.
Conduct the general survey. A general survey was created to
gather opinions from experienced project managers and project
teams who worked or were still working in the Brunei building
construction field for at least the past ten years. The general
survey will examine the correlation between the critical success
factors and critical delay factors. The target population are owners,
contractors and consultants.
Analyse the results using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient,
independent t-test, one way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA.
Identify the critical success factors according to their priority.
89
4.5.3 Stage 3: Ranking and Validating
The activities for stage 3 include the following:
Design the Delphi questionnaires and prepare associated letters
for selected Delphi panellists (A sample letter is shown in Appendix
G)
Pilot the questionnaire with experienced project managers for their
evaluation.
Select the expert panel. Experts are qualified by their knowledge,
skill, experience, training or education.
Conduct the first round of the Delphi survey. First round
questionnaires will be distributed to selected panels.
Analyse the first round of the Delphi results. This questionnaire is
used as the survey instrument for the second round of the data
collection.
Conduct the second round of the Delphi survey. In the second
round, each expert panel receives a second questionnaire and is
asked to review the items summarized from the research based on
the information provided in the first round.
Distribute another round of Delphi questionnaires if required, and
continue to do so until the desired result is achieved.
List and discuss the results of the rankings.
Discuss the conclusions and suggestions for further research.
As a result of the following three steps:
the results of the extensive review of the literature in stage 1
collection of data from stage 2
specific surveys on critical delay factors and general surveys on
the correlation of delay factors and critical success factors
Lists of success factors will be proposed for improvement of building
construction projects. An iterative group consensus using the Delphi method
was developed to establish the priorities of these selected factors according
to experts’ opinions. The ranking of the critical success factors result from
consensus responses among the panel of experts. The Delphi method, using
the two-round approach, was used for this research study because it allows
90
validation of the importance of the critical success factors which are
necessary to improve project performance in building construction projects.
The Delphi questionnaire was initially discussed and piloted with experienced
project managers, publicly and privately, and a number of qualified
engineers. The piloting was done to test whether the questionnaire was
intelligible, unambiguous and easy for the selected panel to understand and
answer.
A panel of experts was identified to contribute to the research through the
Delphi process. The personal character and professional experience of the
panel and the relationship between the panels’ background, topic to be
investigated, the concepts identified, and the site of the study are important
considerations, particularly for the Delphi questionnaire. The expert panel are
representatives of government, business, educators, private construction
firms, and local organizations. This was done to assure validity of the results
based on reasonable distribution of expert opinion and expert judgement of
the industry.
This expert panel comprised representatives of the Brunei government:
The Permanent Secretary, the Ministry of Development and the
Ministry of Finance
Assistant Permanent Secretary, the Ministry of Development
Director General of Public Works Department.
Heads of sections of the Public Works Department.
Experienced consultants.
The first questionnaire was forwarded to each member of the selected panel
to solicit responses on the topics under consideration. This questionnaire is
used as the survey instrument for the second round of data collection. The
responses were summarised and provided to the panel in a second
questionnaire. For the second questionnaire, each Delphi expert panel
member is asked to review the items summarized by the researcher based
on the information provided in the first round. This process was repeated as
91
often as necessary to achieve a desired consensus. The number of Delphi
iterations depends largely on the degree of consensus sought by the
researcher and can vary from three to five. (Delbecq et al, 1975; Ludwig,
1994). When responses stabilised (that is, when the average ranking and the
ranking order of each policy stabilised), the final round results were used as
the consensus.
92
CHAPTER 5
DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND
STATISTICS: STAGE 2 CRITICAL DELAY FACTORS
The objective of this research is to identify the causes of delay in the building
construction industry and to assess the relative importance of these causes
from the viewpoint of the owner, contractor and engineer. The current level of
project success in the Brunei construction industry is very poor. This
research investigates ten building construction projects that encountered
delays in Brunei in order to understand the reasons for these failures, and to
make recommendations that will help Brunei achieve its vision for
development of its construction sector in the future.
A survey was conducted to assess the relative importance of causes of
delays. A questionnaire was developed based on 28 well recognised causes
of delay identified by Odeh and Bettaineh (2002). Participants were asked to
indicate their level of importance of each cause. These causes were
categorized into 8 major groups: client, contractor, consultant, material,
labour and equipment, contract, contract relationship and external related
factors.
Client related factors include causes of delay related to finance and
payments for completed work, owner interference, slow decision making and
unrealistic contract duration imposed by owners. Contractor related factors
include delays caused by subcontractors, site management, inadequate
construction methods, inadequate planning and errors during construction,
and inadequate contractor experience. Consultant related factors include any
cause of delay related to contract management, preparation and approval of
drawings, quality assurance and waiting time for approval of test and
inspection.
93
Material related factors include quality of material and shortage in material.
Labour and equipment causes of delay include problems involving labour
supply, labour productivity and equipment availability and failure. Contract
related factors include delays as a result of change orders and mistakes or
discrepancies in the contract. Contract-relationship related factors include
problems involving major disputes and negotiations, inappropriate overall
organizational structure linking to the project and lack of communication
between the parties. External factors deal with the causes of delay due to
weather conditions, regulatory changes, problems with neighbours and
unforeseen site conditions.
5.1 RESEARCH QUESTION ONE
“What are the real causes of project delays in the Brunei building
construction industry?”
A survey questionnaire was designed to obtain project parties’ recollections
of their field experiences. The target population for this survey were owners,
contractors and engineers who were involved in Brunei’s public building
projects. The respondents were required to be members of project teams in
order to get necessary technical data. The projects selected for this survey
were projects that were nearly completed or completed within the last ten
years. Project files for the selected projects were used by respondents as a
reference to remember what happened on projects after 10 years. A
questionnaire was developed to assess the perceptions of the owners,
contractors and engineers on the relative importance of causes of delay in
the Brunei building construction industry. (Details of the questionnaire can be
found in Appendix G).
The survey questionnaire consisted of six parts:
Part One
Part one collects information to evaluate the validity of the project for this
study. This part of the survey gathered information on demographics such as
the project location, planned cost, type, actual cost, actual duration, planned
duration, contract type, and project designer.
94
Part Two
Part two of the survey sought information about the owners’ background and
demographics. For the purpose of conducting a follow-up if required,
participants were also asked to voluntarily provide contact information. To
facilitate collection of any missing data, the researcher made it clear that the
participants had to be representative of the owner who was involved with the
project as this was the main basis for the research survey questionnaire. The
types of questions asked in part two of the survey included: name of the
project owners (in most cases these were agencies); type of organisation;
owner’s previous experience and on which types of projects this experience
was gained; and availability of funding when the construction phase started.
Part Three
Part three of the survey questionnaire is information about the contractors.
These include demographic questions about the contractors, name of the
contractor, city and company category. The category identifies which
contractors are eligible to bid for which construction projects. The categories
are as follows:
Category 1 – less than B$ 25,000 (Aus $20,000)
Category 2 – B$25,000.00 (Aus $20,000) – B$250,000.00 (Aus $200,000)
Category 3 – B$150,000.00 (Aus $125,000) – B$500,000.00 (Aus $415,000)
Category 4 – B$500,000.00 (Aus $415,000) – B$1.5 Million (Aus $1.25)
Category 5 – B$1.5 Million (Aus $1.25 M) – B$5.0 Million (Aus $4.2M)
Category 6 – B$5 Million above (Aus $4.2 Million)
Part Four
Part four sought information about the engineers, including demographic
questions about the engineer, academic qualifications, length of experience
and job classification.
95
Part Five
Part five of the survey focused on causes of construction delay. The
respondents were asked to indicate their responses to categories established
from 28 well-recognized construction delay causes as identified by Odeh and
Battaineh (2002). A pilot study on the survey among the owners, engineers
and contractors confirmed that they agreed on the causes of delays as
identified, and no modification to this list was required. These causes were
categorised into the following eight major groups:
1. Client related factors: delays caused by financial issues and payment
for completed work, owner interference, slow decision making and
unrealistic contract duration imposed by owners.
2. Contractor related factors: delays caused by subcontractor, site
management, inadequate construction methods, inadequate planning
and errors during construction, and inadequate contractor experience.
3. Consultant related factors: delays caused by contract management,
preparation and approval of drawings, quality assurance and waiting
time for approval of test and inspection.
4. Material related factors: delays caused by the quality of material and
shortage of material.
5. Labour and equipment related factors: delays caused by labour
supply, labour productivity and equipment availability and failure.
6. Contract related factors: delays caused by change orders and
mistakes or discrepancies in the contract.
7. Contract relationship related factors: delays caused by major disputes
and negotiations, inappropriate organisational structure linking to the
project and lack of communication between the parties.
8. External factors: delays caused by weather conditions, regulatory
changes, problems with neighbours and unforeseen site conditions.
Part Six
Part six of the survey allowed respondents to identify additional causes of
delay in addition to the twenty eight delay factors listed above.
96
5.2 SAMPLING AND TARGET POPULATION
Sampling
The survey used random sampling as it is the purest form of probability
sampling. Each member of the population had an equal chance of being
selected, provided the project’s specific constraints were met. The sample
selected comprised those with at least five years’ experience in the Brunei
construction field.
1. Owners
The owners are the future occupiers of buildings who are involved during the
construction stage of the project. The owners were selected from the list of
buildings completed.
2. Contractors
These are lists of contractors classified in building construction according to
government classification systems identified from the registered list published
by Brunei’s Ministry of Development. Contractors are categorised according
to categories 1 – 6. (Category descriptions explained above)
3. Engineers
The engineer is defined as a project manager or designer who interprets the
owner’s needs and creates a tangible blueprint of the project. The engineers
are responsible for project design. They finalise the project, determine which
materials will be used and how they will fit together, and develop the project’s
drawings and specifications.
Targeted Population
The specific project survey targeted building and utility projects in Brunei that
had been completed or partially completed within the past 10 years. The
delay factors were limited to delays between 6 and 18 months. The projects
surveyed consisted of building projects with the following break-down:
residential, office, hotel, academic buildings and mosques. The projects’
97
contract prices ranged from B$500,000.00 (Aus $415,000) to B$100 million
(Aus $83 million), while the building heights ranged from 6 - 20 storeys.
Three of the projects surveyed used the services of consultants, that is, an
engineer employed on behalf of public works. Seven of the projects surveyed
were managed by engineers from the public works department. All the
projects used main contractors and also nominated subcontractors, and the
contract used for all the projects is the traditional contract.
5.3 SURVEY PROCEDURE
Pilot Survey
A pilot survey was conducted using ten owners, ten contractors and ten
engineers to rank the list of causes of delay factors identified by Odeh and
Bettaineh (2002). The basic purpose of the pilot survey was to verify the
completeness of the survey questionnaire in capturing the factors relevant to
the research in Brunei. All the respondents agreed that the questionnaire was
sufficient to capture the causes of delays. Therefore no modification was
made to the causes of delays identified by Odeh and Battaineh (2002).
Participation Arrangements
The participants were informed in advance with proposed target
organisations (project owners, contractors and consultants) in order to clearly
identify the sample population.
Time Scale
Each respondent was initially given three weeks to complete the survey, and
then a reminder was sent allowing an additional three weeks for completion.
Receiving Data
For the internet based survey, the data was downloaded from the survey
database. For hard copy survey collection, a colleague of the researcher
acted as an intermediary, receiving all the completed surveys and arranging
for them to be mailed to Brisbane.
98
Study Limitations
Although attempts were made to interview all parties involved with projects,
some parties could not be reached. However parties that could be reached
on site were most willing to cooperate. Construction managers and major
contractors on the ten sites were adequately covered. As the survey was
conducted on building projects located in Bandar Seri Begawan (the capital
city of Brunei), it would seem inappropriate to generalise for the whole of
Brunei on the basis of this data. However, a large proportion of the high-rise
building construction works in Brunei are located in the city area. It is
recommended that further research is undertaken to determine the extent to
which the results can be extrapolated to other parts of Brunei and to other
countries.
5.4 STATISTICAL METHOD
5.4.1 Relative Importance Index
The Relative Importance Index (RII) is a statistical method to determine the
ranking of different causes. As this survey was designed to determine the
relative importance of various causes of delays, the method was adopted in
this study within various groups (i.e. owners, contractors or engineers). The
RII five-point scale, ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)
was adopted and transformed the relative importance indices (RII) for each
factor as follows:
RII = ∑ W
A * N
where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondents (ranging
from 1 to 5), A is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case), and N is the total
number of respondents. The RII value had a range from 0 to 1 (0 not
inclusive). The higher the value of RII, the more important was the cause or
effect of delays.
The RII was used to rank the relative importance index of the different
causes. These rankings made it possible to cross-compare the relative
importance of the factors as perceived by the three groups of respondents
99
(i.e. owners, contractors and engineers). Each individual cause’s RII, as
perceived by all respondents, was used to assess the general and an overall
ranking in order to give an overall picture of the causes of construction delays
in Brunei’s building construction industry.
5.4.2 Spearman’s Rank Correlation
Spearman’s rank correlation is a non parametric test. It is used when you
have two measurement variables and one “hidden” nominal variable. It is
also used when one or both of the variables consist of ranks. These tests
have the obvious advantage of not requiring the assumption of normality or
the assumption of homogeneity of variance. They compare medians rather
than means and, as a result, if the data has one or two outliers, their
influence is negated. Spearman’s rank correlation is a technique used to test
the direction and strength of the relationship between two variables. In other
words, it is a device to show whether any one set of numbers has an effect
on another set of numbers. It uses the statistics Rs which falls between -1
and +1.
As Spearman’s rank correlation is a technique to test the direction and
strength of the relationship between two variables, the method was adopted
in this research to show the degree of agreement between the different
parties. The correlation coefficient varies between +1 and -1 with +1 implying
a perfect positive relationship (agreement) and -1 implying a perfect negative
relationship (disagreement). It might be said then that sample estimates of
correlation close to unity in magnitude imply good correlation, while values
near zero indicate little or no correlation. The Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficient r is used to measure and compare the associations between the
rankings of two parties for a single cause of delay, while ignoring the ranking
of the third party. It is calculated using the following formula:
r's = 1 – [ ( 6 ∑ d²)/(n³ - n)]
Where r is the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between two parties, d
is the difference between ranks assigned to variables for each cause, and n
is the number of pairs of rank. The null hypothesis is that the ranks of one
variable do not relate to the ranks of the other variable. In other words, as the
100
ranks of one variable increases, the ranks of the other variable are not more
likely to increase (or decrease).
Spearman’s rank correlation works by converting each variable to ranks.
Once the two variables are converted to ranks, a correlation analysis is done
on the ranks. The correlation coefficient is calculated for the two columns of
ranks, and the significance of this is tested in the same way as the correlation
coefficient for a regular correlation. (The Spearman’s correlation coefficient is
also called Spearman’s rho). The P-value from the correlation of ranks is the
P-value of the Spearman rank correlation. The procedures for using
Spearman’s Rank Correlation are:
1. State the null hypothesis i.e. “There is no relationship between the two
sets of data.”
2. Rank both sets of data from the highest to the lowest. Make sure to
check for tied ranks.
3. Subtract the two sets of ranks to get the difference d.
4. Square the values of d.
5. Add the squared values of d to get sums of d2.
6. Use the formula Rs = 1 – (6 Sums d/n – n) where n is the number of
ranks you have.
7. Between two sets of data, if the Rs value
…is -1, there is a perfect negative correlation.
…falls between -1 and -0.5, there is strong negative correlation.
…falls between -0.5 and 0, there is a weak negative correlation.
….is 0, there is no correlation.
…falls between 0 and 0.5, there is a weak positive correlation.
…falls between 0.5 and 1, there is a strong positive correlation
…is 1, there is a perfect positive correlation.
8. If the Rs value is 0, state that null hypothesis is accepted. Otherwise,
say it is rejected.
101
5.5 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The statistical analysis procedures that were used for each part of the survey
questionnaire are as follows:
Part 1 (project information): Frequencies and percentages are used to
summarise responses.
Part 2 (owner information): Frequencies and percentages are used to
summarise responses to questions about type of organisation, owner
experience, and availability of funding. It also shows owners’ ranking
of the causes of the delay factors.
Part 3 (contractor information): Frequencies and percentages are used
to summarise responses to questions about contractor category,
experience and financial background. It also shows contractors’
ranking of the causes of the delay factors.
Part 4 (Engineer Information): Frequencies and percentages are used
to summarise responses to questions about engineers’ background
and experience. It also shows engineers’ ranking of the causes of the
delay factors.
Part 5 (Project factors evaluation): Relative Importance Index is used
to rank delay factors by respondent (owner, engineer and contractor)
and the Spearman correlation to test agreement between respondents
(owner, contractor and engineer).
Part 6 (Additional Causes of Delay factors): Participants to add any
causes of delays that they think should be considered.
5.6. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
General characteristic of respondents
Respondents included 30 owners, 25 contractors and 20 engineers out of 35,
35 and 35 distributed questionnaires respectively. Respondents have an
average experience of between 10 and 20 years, and have handled projects
that cost between B$500,000.00 (Aus $415,000) to B$100 Million (Aus $83
Million). The contractors surveyed are categorised as class 4, 5 and 6
(categories explained previously).
102
5.7. ANALYSIS OF DATA
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of the respondents
Demographic characteristics Frequency Percent
Age
Less than 20 Nil Nil
30 – 39 22 29.33
40 – 49 35 46.70
50 and above 13 17.33
Sex
Male 53 70.67
Female 22 29.33
Education
Lower secondary (Form 1-3) Nil Nil
Upper secondary (Form 14-5) Nil Nil
Pre-University(Form 6) 5 0.07
University 40 53.33
Post Graduate 30 40.00
Type of Organization
Clients (government or developer) 30 40.00
Consultant 20 26.70
Contractor 25 33.30
Occupational level
Non-executive 15 20.00
Executive 38 50.67
Managerial 22 29.33
Numbers of years working experience
Less than 2 years Nil Nil
2 – 5 years Nil Nil
6 – 10 years 26 34.67
More than 10 years 49 65.33
Field of specialization
Building 36 48
Infrastructure 18 24
Mechanical and Electrical 16 21.33
Others 5 6.67
Largest project involve based on contract sum
Less than 10 millions Nil
10 millions – 50 millions 8
More than 50 millions 2
103
5.7.1 Results of Analysis
The data was analysed from the perspective of owners, contractors and
engineers. Each individual cause’s RII perceived by all respondents was
computed for overall analysis. From the ranking assigned to each cause of
delay, the most important factors or causes of delays in Brunei’s building
construction industry were able to be identified. Table 5.2 gives the ranking of
causes based on the responses of all respondents (owners, contractors and
engineers). Table 5.3 summarizes RII and ranking of the categories of delays
as perceived by respondents.
Table 5.2 Ranking Causes of Delays (based on overall participant)
Causes of delays Importance of delay Overall
Client related causes 1 2 3 4 5 R11
Finance and payments of completed work 5 18 32 20 0.7787
Owner interference 1 10 25 32 7 0.6907
Slow decision making 1 2 15 33 24 0.8053
Unrealistic contract duration and requirements imposed
1 11 33 23 8 0.6773
Contractor related causes
Subcontractor performance 5 21 28 21 0.7733
Site management 2 5 14 40 14 0.7573
Construction methods 1 8 18 31 17 0.7467
Inadequate planning 2 3 18 29 23 0.7813
Mistakes during construction stage 1 8 28 27 11 0.7040
Inadequate contractor experience 5 22 32 16 0.7573
Engineer/consultant related causes
Contract management 11 34 23 7 0.6693
Preparation and approval of drawings 12 22 31 10 0.7040
Quality assurance/control 2 15 25 23 10 0.6640
Waiting time for approval of tests and inspection
1 10 28 29 7 0.6827
Material related causes
Quality of material 3 8 31 24 6 0.6347
104
Shortage in material 1 7 20 28 19 0.7520
Labour and equipment category causes
Labour supply 2 5 23 31 14 0.7333
Labour productivity 2 7 30 28 8 0.6880
Equipment availability and failure 7 22 35 11 0.7333
Contract related causes
Change orders 5 19 28 23 0.7840
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
6 23 29 17 0.7520
Contract relationships related causes
Major disputes and negotiations 11 36 22 6 0.6880
Inappropriate overall organizational structures linking to the project
5 36 23 11 0.7067
Lack of communication between the parties 1 3 11 34 26 0.8160
External causes
Weather conditions 1 15 26 29 4 0.6533
Regulatory changes 1 13 26 23 12 0.6853
Problem with neighbours 3 16 33 20 3 0.6106
Unforeseen site conditions 2 7 24 31 10 0.6987
*R11: Reflective index
Table 5.3 Ranking Categories of Causes of Delay
Causes of Delay
Owner Rank Engineer Rank Contractor Rank Overall Rank
Client related
0.678 5 0.758 3 0.794 1 0.738 3
Contractor related
0.746 1 0.777 1 0.759 5 0.753 2
Engineer/ Consultant related
0.648 7 0.683 7 0.728 4 0.680 7
Material related
0.673 6 0.730 5 0.760 3 0.693 6
Labour and equip related
0.7 4 0.717 6 0.717 8 0.718 5
Contract related
0.7 3 0.765 2 0.772 2 0.768 1
Contract relationship related
0.731 2 0.757 4 0.725 6 0.737 4
External causes
0.622 8 0.675 8 0.718 7 0.662 8
105
In order to test the degree of agreement between the three groups of
respondents, a correlation analysis using Spearmen’s rank correlation
coefficient was done. This test showed the relationship between owners,
contractors and engineers on their agreement about the delay factors. Table
5.5 shows the correlation between the respondents. Owners, contractors and
engineers show a positive correlation on their agreement on the delay
factors. High correlation indicates that there is a high degree of agreement
between the respondents.
Table 5.4 Spearman Correlation (owner, contractor and engineer)
Correlations
1.000 .272 .382*
. .161 .045
28 28 28
.272 1.000 .372
.161 . .051
28 28 28
.382* .372 1.000
.045 .051 .
28 28 28
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
OwnerRnk
ContRnk
EngRnk
Spearman's rhoOwnerRnk ContRnk EngRnk
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.
5.7.2 Discussion of results
This section discusses the results obtained from the surveys on the causes
of delay factors. Results shown in table 5.2 indicate that the seven most
important causes of delay were identified as:
(1) Lack of communication
(2) Slow decision making
(3) Change orders
(4) Inadequate planning by the contractor
(5) Finance and payment of completed work
(6) Subcontractor performance
(7) Inadequate contractor experience
106
The inadequate contractor experience has exactly the same R11 value
(0.7573) as site management. Inadequate contractor experience was
selected based on the number of participant highest score of “5” on
importance of delay. The delay factors were categorised into 8 groups for
evaluation on the group causes of delays. Based on the ranking of the group
categories of causes of delay shown in Table 5.3, the following is a brief
consideration on the causes of delay based on follow up discussions and
information from owners, contractors and engineers after the survey.
Owners’ factors causing delay in construction projects
The owner-related group of delay factors was most important to contractors
and engineers. This is mainly due to financing issues and owner interference,
which are considered very important by both parties. It is interesting to note
that slow decision-making by owners and unrealistic contract duration are
more important to engineers than to contractors. This is because contractors
rank operational issues, such as labour productivity and equipment
availability and failure, more highly. Unlike contactors, however, engineers
consider the owner-related factors to be more important than operational
ones. Overall, slow decision making is the major owner-related factor
affecting delay in construction projects in Brunei.
Contractors’ factors causing delay in construction projects
Both owners and engineers ranked this group of causes highly. It is worth
noting that engineers are mainly concerned with technical factors such as
inadequate contractors’ experience, delays caused by subcontractor
performance, and inadequate planning, while contractors are concerned
about the delay factors caused by subcontractor performance.
Inadequate contractor planning was the most important factor in this group.
This can be attributed to the contract awarding procedure in Brunei, where
most projects are awarded to the lowest bidder. Moreover, local contractors,
solely or through joint ventures, are being awarded large and complex
projects for which they have little experience, because access to such
projects was generally limited to international contractors in the past. Delays
107
caused by subcontractor performance are also of high importance to
engineers. This can be attributed to inadequate subcontractor experience,
the bid-shopping practice of general contractors, and inadequate planning
and coordination.
Inadequate planning is also troublesome to contractors and engineers. Local
contractors are reluctant to use scheduling techniques and to update
schedules on a regular basis. Despite the fact that contractors are required to
provide work schedules on most projects, these are often ‘summary’
schedules that are rarely updated during construction. Delays caused by
inadequate construction methods are more important to engineers.
Fluctuation in the construction market and the seasonal nature of the industry
has forced many contractors to diversify. As a result, they do not focus on
one line of work, but try to adopt advanced methods and techniques.
Site management is another important cause of delay to contractors. This is
due to the reluctance of contractors to invest in planning and control and to
the lack of professional construction managers. The majority of site
managers are civil engineers with good work experience but little training or
education in management. Overall, inadequate planning by the contractor is
a major cause of delay.
Engineers’/Consultants’ factors causing construction delays
Neither owners nor engineers ranked this group of factors high among the
major groups of delay-causing factors. Contrary to expectations, engineers
consistently ranked each of these causes higher than contractors. The
highest ranked factor among these causes was contract management. This
could be attributed to the lack of authority the owners are willing to delegate
to engineers to enable them to manage the contract effectively. This finding
is consistent with the high ranking of owner interference and the low ranking
of factors over which the owners are usually granted authority. These latter
factors include preparation and approval of drawings, quality
assurance/control, and approval of tests and inspections. Preparation and
108
approval of drawings by engineers is the most significant delay factor for this
group rated by contractors.
Materials’ factors causing delay in construction projects
The group of materials-related causes received high rankings from
engineers. The quality of material was among the least important causes
because most of the available material - especially cement, steel and asphalt
- is locally provided with little variation in quality. Shortages of material
received a higher ranking than quality. This is particularly true for imported
material that may take a considerable time to procure. The shortages of
materials can also result from an absence of adequate statistics on material
availability, fluctuations in the availability of construction materials, very long
average waiting times and uncertainty about the deliveries of ordered
materials and shortages of funds to procure materials, and inadequacy in
terms of transportation.
Labour and equipment factors causing delay in construction projects
This group of causes was ranked high by contractors and engineers. As
expected, this group is more important to contractors than engineers. This
was true for labour productivity and for equipment availability and failure.
While labour supply is not that important considering the relatively
inexpensive supply of foreign and local labourers, the productivity of the
labour force was the top ranked factor. This may be attributed to lack of
incentives for higher productivity, lack of or inadequate training, and the
absence of trade unions or associations that regulate, train, and classify
construction trades. Equipment availability is the most important factor in this
group that causes delays in the construction projects.
Contract related factors causing delay in construction projects
This group of causes had greater variation in ranking than any other group.
While it was considered important by contractors, it was less important for
engineers. Engineers - who are usually empowered to issue changed orders
and to correct mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents - are less
critical of their role in causing such delays, in contrast to contractors.
109
Contractors believe the poor contract management produces deficiencies in
the contractor’s plan, cost control and overall site management.
Contractual relationship factors causing delays in construction projects
This group of causes was ranked high by owners, contractors and engineers.
Factors relating to organisation and communication were more important to
engineers than to contractors. Delays caused by disputes and negotiations
were less important to all respondents, especially for public projects where
arbitration is not allowed and where legal recourse through courts takes a
considerable time. The respondents (contractors, engineers and owners)
strongly agree that a lack of communication between project teams is the
most important of the delay factors that cause delays in the construction
projects.
External factors
External factors were the lowest ranked group of factors by both parties. It
seems that all parties are familiar with these factors and are able to deal with
them effectively, thus avoiding major delays.
5.8 CONCLUSION
The results of the survey questionnaire from the stakeholders (owners,
contractors and engineers), are summarised in Table 5.5, which lists the
rankings by owners, contractors, engineers (and overall) of the most
important delay factors. The seven most important causes of building
construction delays as perceived by owners were:
(1) Lack of communication between parties
(2) Slow decision making
(3) Inadequate planning
(4) Change orders
(5) Inadequate contractor experience
(6) Labour supply
(7) Subcontractor performance
110
The seven most important causes perceived by contractors were:
(1) Slow decision making
(2) Finance and payment for completed work
(3) Subcontractor performance
(4) Shortage in materials
(5) Site management
(6) Mistakes and discrepancies in the contract
(7) Lack of communication
The seven most important causes perceived by engineers were:
(1) Lack of communication
(2) Slow decision making
(3) Change orders
(4) Contractor inadequate planning
(5) Finance and payment for completed work
(6) Subcontractors performance and
(7) Shortage in material.
Table 5.5 Summary Results of Critical Delay Factors
Owner Engineer Contractor Overall
Lack of communication
Lack of communication
Owner slow decision making
Lack of communication
Slow decision making
Slow decision making
Finance and payment of completed work
Slow decision making
Inadequate contractor planning
Change orders Subcontractor performance
Change orders
Change orders Contractor inadequate planning
Shortage in material
Inadequate contractor planning
Inadequate contractor experience
Finance and payment of completed work
Site management Finance and payment of completed work
Labour supply Subcontractor performance
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
Subcontractor performance
Subcontractor performance
Shortage in material Lack of communication
Inadequate contractor experience
111
There were three delay factors common to the groups of participants. These
are “Lack of communication”, “Slow decision making” and “Subcontractor
performance”. Other delay factors common between two groups are “Change
Orders”, “Inadequate Contractor Planning”, and “Shortage of Material”.
The researcher identified the seven most important causes of delay based on
the overall rankings by respondents. These are:
(1) Lack of communication between parties
(2) Slow decision making
(3) Change orders
(4) Inadequate contractor planning
(5) Finance and payment of completed work
(6) Subcontractor performance
(7) Inadequate contractor experience
The value of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient shows that there is
relatively good agreement between each of the groups in ranking the
importance of the delay factors. The following discusses opinions of the
respondents’ from the specific surveys about the delay factors identified in
construction projects, and a follow-up discussion on the causes of the delay
factors.
5.8.1 Lack of communication between parties
Since there are many parties involved in a project (owner, engineer,
contractor, subcontractor), the communication between the parties is crucial
to the success of the project. Proper communication channels between the
various parties must be established during the planning stage. Problems with
communication can lead to serious misunderstandings and therefore, delays
in the execution of the project. There is no communication team overseeing
all project team members throughout the life cycle of the project. The roles
and responsibilities of team members were not clearly identified and the
project teams were represented by different authorities or departments.
There are no appropriate overall organisational structures and
112
communication systems linking all project teams throughout the life of the
project.
5.8.2 Slow decision making
The slow speed of decision making affects all project teams. The design
document, including drawings and specifications, does not provide the
contractor with a clearly defined basis to plan the resource needs of a
construction project. The information flow between all project team members
was neither timely nor well organised and the decision-makers were not
clearly identified. There is no appropriate overall organisational structure.
Owners are accused of being slow in decision making, and in many
instances contractors waste resources waiting for owners to decide on
specialist contractors and designers, decorative material and suppliers, and
provision of adequate information on changes required. Some of the change
orders are large-magnitude changes requiring extensive redesign.
Most decisions are made by committees which are, by their nature, slow
decision makers in comparison to individuals. Committee decisions tend to
be compromises rather than optimal solutions to problems, and are delayed
due to scheduling issues: committees have meetings scheduled in advance,
so that decisions that affect project execution have to await the next meeting
of the committee. This slow response inevitably delays work on site.
5.8.3 Change orders
There are frequent change orders requested by owners in response to
requirements from their management. Owners need to minimise change
orders during construction to avoid delays. Some change orders come from
engineers seeking to save costs on additional works. Variations are the
cause of many problems in building contracts and increase a project’s time
and cost. Project teams were not clearly and thoroughly briefed by the client.
The technical feasibility studies undertaken before project authorisation are
inadequate. Owners’ requests for changes are usually made at short notice,
thereby impacting on the contractor’s plan. Some change orders can be of a
113
large magnitude, requiring extensive redesign. The owners rated design
errors made by the engineers as the most important delay factor to change
orders. Change orders are also linked to inadequate technical feasibility
studies before project authorisation. This is further explained in most
circumstances by projects being rushed to their commencement, and political
committees overriding the detailed preparation of project plans. There are no
comprehensive strategies formulated to minimise variations.
5.8.4 Inadequate contractor planning
Local contractors often fail to produce a practical and workable “work
program” at the initial planning stage. This failure reflects the lack of
systematic site management and inadequate contractor experience on
Brunei’s construction projects. Inadequate contractor planning results in lack
of sufficient detail and an emphasis on decoration in some plans. Despite the
fact that contractors are required to provide work schedules on most projects,
the schedule is often a summary schedule that is rarely updated during
construction. Poor contract management also leads to inadequate contractor
planning which results in a very low level of productivity, inadequate finances
for short and long term purposes, an absence of specialisation and
inadequate technical power.
5.8.5 Owners’ finance and payments for completed work
Construction projects in Brunei involve large amounts of money. Many
contractors find it difficult to bear the daily construction expenses when their
payments are delayed, resulting in an inadequate cash flow to support
construction expenses, exacerbated for those contractors who are not
financially sound. Irregular payment on public projects is a major cause of
liquidity problems for contractors. The major financier of construction projects
in Brunei is the Brunei Government (owner). This may be attributed to the
dominant culture within the industry, since the government still bears the
whole burden of project financing. At present there is no participation by
private investors in financing public sector projects. There is also no
participation by contractors in financing projects, and this could be due to the
114
traditional contract method commonly in practice in building construction
projects.
5.8.6 Subcontractor performance
In large construction projects there are typically many subcontractors working
under the principal contractors. If the subcontractors are capable, the project
can be completed on time. However, the project will be delayed if the
subcontractor underperforms due to inadequate experience or capability. A
high degree of subcontracting in Brunei leads to a high risk of delays, and
this leads to inefficiencies in the entire construction industry, attributable to
the inadequate experience of subcontractors, the bid-shopping practice of
general contractors, and to inadequate planning and coordination.
5.8.7 Inadequate contractor experience
Inadequate contractor experience was an important factor affecting project
delays. This can be linked to the contract-awarding procedure where most
projects are awarded to the lowest bidder, and where local contractors, solely
or through joint ventures, are awarded large and complex projects for which
they have little experience because access to such projects was limited to
international contractors in the past.
115
CHAPTER 6
DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS: CORRELATION OF DELAY
FACTORS AND SUCCESS FACTORS
The seven most significant success factors identified by Ashley et al. (1987)
have been adopted for this study due to the comprehensive, detailed nature
of the descriptions and because much of the research undertaken since
Ashley’s study has been based on this work. The seven most significant
success factors in determining project success, which have been chosen for
further investigation in this study, are:
1. Organisational planning
2. Project manager goal commitment
3. Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
4. Clarity of the project’s scope and work definition
5. Project manager’s capabilities and experience
6. Safety precautions and applied procedures
7. Use of control systems
The identified seven delay factors discussed in Chapter 5 of this thesis, and
the top seven success factors noted above, are summarised in Table 6.1.
These will be referred to as the critical delay factors and critical success
factors. In addition to the seven critical success factors and seven delay
factors (identified and justified in chapters 5 and 6), respondents were given
the opportunity to add information about any other success or delay factors
they may have experienced in the projects (in the questionnaire undertaken
to correlate delay and success factors).
116
Table 6.1 Critical Success Factors and Critical Delay Factors
Success factors Delay factors
S1 Organisational planning D1 Lack of communication among project parties
S2 Project manager’s goal commitment
D2 Slow decision making
S3 Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
D3 Change orders
S4 Clarity of the project’s scope and work definition
D4 Inadequate contractor planning
S5 Project manager’s capabilities and experience
D5 Finance and payment for completed work
S6 Safety precautions and applied procedures
D6 Subcontractors performance
S7 Use of control systems D7 Inadequate contractor experience
6.1 SURVEY STRUCTURE
A general survey (Appendix H) was designed to survey owners, contractors
and engineers who are involved in Brunei’s public building construction
projects. A questionnaire was developed to assess the perceptions of the
owners, contractors and engineers on the relative importance of causes of
delay in the Brunei building construction industry. The survey consisted of
six parts:
Part One
Part one sought information from respondents on projects’ actual delays, the
extent of the delays, types of contract used, types of project, actual cost,
actual duration, and project management. This information helped to
evaluate the project validity for this research, as the research required
participants who had experienced project delays.
Part Two
Part two of the survey collected information about the owner. The types of
questions asked in part two of the survey include: name of the project owners
(in most cases these were agencies); type of organisation; owner’s job
position, owner’s time with the organisation and owner’s previous experience
and on which types of projects this experience was gained; and availability of
117
funding when the construction phase started. Information about the
respondents’ knowledge, experience and contact details was also sought
here. This part of the survey helped the researcher to clarify an owner’s
experience with projects and project teams during construction.
Part Three
Part three of the survey includes demographic questions about the
contractors. These include the name of the contractor, category of the
contractor, type of company (for example building contractor, structural
contractor, mechanical & electrical contractor, etc), local or international
contractor, experience working internationally, company partnership details,
and financial background of the contractor. The contractor was also asked to
list all types of contract they have experienced in the building construction
industry. This part of the survey helped to clarify contractor involvement in
the building construction industry locally and internationally, which helped the
researcher to validate the outcome of the survey.
Part Four
Part four sought information about the engineers or designers. This included
demographic questions about the engineer, years of experience, academic
qualifications and job classification. This part of the survey also asked the
engineers about the type of projects they have experienced, the minimum
and maximum costs of projects they have handled, approximate number of
projects they handle each year, and their experience as a project manager.
This information will help the researcher to validate the outcome of the
survey, as the research requires participation by engineers with at least five
years’ experience in building construction projects.
Part Five
In this section, the owners, contractors and engineers were asked to evaluate
construction project success and delay factors in general. The evaluation
scale was a five-point scale (very good = 5, good = 4, fair = 3, poor = 2, very
poor = 1). At the end of each question, respondents were given the
opportunity to add information about any other success or delay factors they
118
may have experienced on the projects. Very few participants added anything
new in response to this question, but the answers provided general
knowledge about how success and delay factors were perceived in
construction projects in Brunei.
Part Six
The relationships between success and delay factors were assessed through
the respondents’ answers to seven questions. Each question ascertained the
presence of each of the delay factors, and the degree to which the project
suffered due to these delay factors. If a respondent answered in the positive,
they were asked to provide information about the influence of the top seven
success factors as well as the noted delay factor. The evaluation scale for
this question was also a five-point scale (completely = 5, a good deal = 4, a
moderate amount = 3, a small amount = 2, and not at all = 1). For example,
one of the questions asked to what extent an owner’s cash flow problems
during construction could have been avoided and/or prevented by a success
factor (e.g. organisational planning). Respondents were also given the
opportunity to identify any other success factors that could be used to avoid
or prevent the noted delay factor.
Part Seven
Part 7 of the survey gave respondents the opportunity to identify additional
causes of delay and success, beyond the top seven already identified.
Respondents were asked to evaluate these factors with the same 5-point
scale. No survey participants provided a response that indicated any new
delay factors, means of avoiding delay, or any new success factors that could
avoid delay factors.
6.2 STATISTICAL METHOD
As discussed in the methodology section in chapter 4, analysis was
undertaken for each category of data collected, using statistical analysis
software (SPSS). The following statistical instruments were used in this
study:
119
6.2.1 Pearson Correlation Coefficient
A Pearson correlation coefficient measures the strength and directions of the
relationship between two quantitative variables. It ranges from -1 (perfect
negative correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation). It is calculated by
dividing the covariance of the variables by the square root of the product of
their variance. Correlation is a measure of how two random variables X and
Y “move” with respect to each other. Pearson’s r is computed by:
r = (x – )² x (y – )²
∑(x–)² x (y – )²
In this study r was used to measure the strength and direction of the
relationship between ratings of critical success and delay factors. This
method was used specifically to evaluate responses in part of the general
survey.
Hypothesis testing: Pearson’s correlation r is a sample statistic. To test if X
and Y are significantly correlated in the population, we test the hypothesis
that the population correlation coefficient, rho (ρ) is significantly different from
0.
The test statistic is given by: Ttest = r(√n-2)/(√1-r²)
The critical value is t for a chosen significance level (a = 0.05) and (n -2)
degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is rejected if testt > criticalt
6.2.2 Independent t test
The independent sample t test was used to compare the population means
based on sample statistics from two independent populations. In this study a
t test was used to compare the perceptions of owners, contractors and
engineers, about the influence of individual success factors on individual
delay factors for specific projects.
120
Assumptions:
1) The dependent variable is normally distributed.
This assumption was not formally tested since the statistical literature has
shown that the consequences of breaking this assumption are not serious, as
long as sample sizes are not extremely small.
2) The two groups have approximately equal variance on the dependent
variable.
The statistical software used to conduct analyses, SPSS, provides a test of
this assumption and also provides results from a form of the t-test that does
not assume equal variances in case there is evidence that the assumption is
not met.
3) The two groups are independent of one another.
For this research study, the following generic non-directional hypotheses (two
tailed) has been tested at a level of significance of a = 0.05.
H0: 1=2
Hı: 1 ≠ 2
Significance in this test is evaluated based on the p-value. A small p-value
signifies that the test is significant and that a conclusion can be drawn from
the results. For example if the p-value is greater than 0.05, the test is
insignificant and no conclusions can be drawn.
6.2.3 One Way ANOVA
One-way ANOVA is the statistical methodology for comparing means of
several populations. It is called analysis of variance, or simply ANOVA.
ANOVA is a generalised test for the comparison of the means, where the z
and t tests can be used to compare, at most, two groups. In this study to
compare the mean ratings of the influence of the seven success factors on
each of the delay factors in order to learn which success factors
demonstrated the most influence, a one-way ANOVA has been used. Table
6.2 show equations for one-way ANOVA.
121
Table 6.2 One Way ANOVA Equations
Source Equation F (test)
Mean square treatment
nı(1-)²+n2(2-)²+…+nk(k-)²
K – 1
MSE
MSTrF
Mean square error
(nı-1)Sı²+(n2-) Sı²+….+(nk-1)Sk²
N – K
Where N = total numbers of observations, K = number of groups
n1 = sample size in each group, ı = mean of group i
y = overall mean, Sı² = variance of group I
A separate analysis was carried out for owners, contractors and engineers.
The repeated measures form of ANOVA was used in this context because
the same participant rated all seven of the success factors. In the between-
subjects or independent groups’ form of ANOVA, it is assumed that groups
are independent, whereas in the repeated measures form a correlation
between multiple measures of the same participants is assumed.
In ANOVA, we test the alternative hypothesis (H1) that at least one of the
group means is different from the others, and compare this with the null
hypothesis (H0) that there is no difference between the means.
H0: 1=2=3=…=is H1: not all the are s equal.
Assumptions of a one way repeated measures ANOVA:
Dependent variable is normally distributed
Independence of observations between subjects
Homogeneity of variance across measures
Homogeneity of covariance between pairs of measures.
6.2.4 Two Way ANOVA
The two-way analysis of variance is an extension of the one-way analysis of
variance. There are two independent variables, both of which are categorical.
In this study the two-way ANOVA has been used for two purposes:
122
1. To compare the perceptions of owners and contractors, owners and
engineers, and engineers and contractors regarding the relative
influence of the seven success factors on each delay factor.
2. To compare the perceptions of owners, contractors, and engineers.
The form of two-way ANOVA used in the present study had one between-
subject factor (group) and one repeated or within-subjects factor (the seven
success factors). The assumptions for this form of two-way ANOVA are the
same as those for one-way repeated measures ANOVA, with the additional
assumption of independence between groups. Table 6.3 shows the
equations for two-way ANOVA.
Table 6.3 Two way ANOVA General Equations
Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square, MS
F
Factor A: Difference between the a machine means
iX
2.
1
)( XXbSS i
a
iA
a – 1 ))1/(( aSS A E
A
MS
MS
Factor B: Difference between the b operator means
jX .
2
1
).( XjXSSb
jB
b – 1 1
b
SSMS B
B E
B
MS
MS
Residual (Error): Difference between actual observation
ijX and fitted
values
XXXX jiij
2.
11
).( XjXXXSS iij
b
j
a
iB
(a – 1) x (b -1) )1)(1(
ba
SSMS E
E
Total
2
11
)( XXSS ij
b
j
a
iE
(ab-1)
Decision Rule: criticalA FF ( 05.0 , d.f. (a – 1), (a – 1)x(b – 1))
criticalB FF ( 05.0 , d.f. (b – 1), (a – 1)x(b – 1))
In general, there are three hypotheses tested by the two-way ANOVA. The
null hypotheses are as follows:
The population means of the first factor are equal
123
The population means of the second factor are equal
There is no interaction between the two factors.
In the present study, the first factor (the between subjects factor) is the
group, and the second factor (the repeat factor) is the success factor.
Therefore, the following three null hypotheses were tested:
The population means of the groups are equal.
The population means of the success factors are equal.
There is no interaction between the effect of group and the effect of
the success factor.
H0: 1=2=3=…=is
H1: not all the s are equal
Level of significance a = 0.05
6.3 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Following is a descriptive summary of the statistical analysis procedures that
were used for each part of the general survey to examine the correlation of
success factors and delay factors:
Part 1 (project information): To summarise the response from the
project information, frequencies and percentages are used to analyse
the result.
Part 2 (owner information): Frequencies and percentages are used to
summarise responses to questions about type of organisation, owner
experience, and availability of funding. In the same manner
frequencies, percentages and descriptive statistics are used to
summarise owners’ perceptions of projects (means and standard
deviations).
Part 3 (engineers’ information and general experience): Frequencies
and percentages are used to summarise background information
about engineers. Frequencies, percentages and descriptive statistics
(means and standard deviations) are used to summarise engineers’
perceptions of the characteristics of public projects.
Part 4 (contractor information): Frequencies and percentages are used
to summarise responses to questions about project payments and
124
approval of material samples. Frequencies, percentages and
descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) are used to
summarise contractors’ perceptions of owners.
Part 5 (project factors evaluation): Pearson correlation coefficient is
used to measure the strength and direction of the relationship between
critical success and delay factors on the same projects. In addition, a t
test was used to examine owners’, engineers’ and contractors’
evaluation of projects’ critical success and delay factors.
Part 6 (Relationship between success and delay factors): A two-way
ANOVA is used to examine the mean differences in perceptions
between “owners and engineers”, “owner and contractors”,
“contractors and engineers” and “owners, contractors and engineers”,
to determine which critical success factors had the most influence in
avoiding or preventing each delay factor.
6.4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This section will present the characteristics of participants and the results of
the Pearson correlations, t and ANOVA tests used to answer the research
questions.
6.4.1 Participants’ characteristics
One hundred and four responses were received from owners, engineers and
contractors who had been involved on construction projects. The descriptive
statistics, characteristics and information from the project owners, engineers
and contractors meet the requirement of the survey and are discussed as
follows:.
6.4.2 Project Information
Project type: The type of project varied to include office buildings,
residences, hospitals, schools, and mixed compounds.
Project contract type: The sample contained only two types of
contracts: lump sum contract and traditional contract.
125
Project designer: Projects which were designed in-house by the
owner’s engineering staff comprised 75 % of the sample, and projects
designed by consultants comprised 25 % of the sample.
6.4.3 Owner’s Characteristic
Owners’ experience: 65 % of the projects’ owners had extensive
experience, the remaining had some experience, and none of the
respondents were without experience.
Owner’s funding availability: 55% of the sample size had the required
project funding fully available, and 45% had funding partially available.
6.4.4 Engineers’ Characteristics
Engineers’ information: The researcher sought some information from
the engineer respondents about their businesses and experience, in
order to clarify ambiguous responses or to compensate for missing
data.
Engineers’ academic major: The academic major of the respondent
engineers was very important, allowing the researcher to determine
whether the information provided was reliable. From among the
respondent engineers, 30% were civil engineers who were involved in
construction management, 40% were architectural engineers, and
30% of the other engineers were in electrical, mechanical, or urban
design areas.
Engineers’ qualifications: The survey showed that 55% of the sample
held bachelor’s degrees, 40% held master’s degrees, and 5% held
PhDs.
Engineers’ experience: The experience of the sample engineers
varied from a minimum of 10 years, with the most experienced
engineer in the sample having 35 years of experience. The mean
experience was 20 years.
Engineers’ experience as project manager. The survey showed that
70% of the sample had worked as project managers, and most had
worked on at least 60 projects as project managers.
126
6.4.5 Contractors’ Characteristics
Contractor category: In this study, 60% of the sample contractors were
classified as category 6, 20% were category 5 and 20% were
classified in the category 4 (The summary of the classification of the
categories of contractor can be found on page 98 chapter 5).The
contractors’ classification process in Brunei requires certain conditions
in order to classify the companies, such as their financial situation, key
workers’ qualifications and equipment and any other owned assets.
6.5 RESEARCH QUESTION TWO
“How are these delays factors correlated to critical success factors within
the construction industry?”
Table 6.4 Research Questions 2 (I, II, & III)
Research questions Answer sought Statistical method
I How do specific critical success factors affect individual critical delay factors?
Measurement of the strength and direction of relationship between critical success and delay factors.
A Pearson correlation coefficient was used for each group separately (owners, contractors, and engineers).
II Do these relations vary by project affiliation (“owner/contractor”, ”owner/engineer” and “contractor/engineer”)?
Comparison of owners’, contractors’, and engineers’ perceptions in both evaluating success and delay factors and influence of success factors on each delay factor
A t-test examining owners’, engineers and contractors’ evaluation of projects’ critical success and delay factors and the influence of critical success factors on critical delay factors
III Does the ranking of the relative influence of the critical success factors on each critical delay factor vary by project respondents?
Determine if the means differ between responses to the general surveys
One and two – way ANOVA used to examine the means’ differences.
This section will provide an explanation of research question two, and the
statistical analyses and conclusion. There are three secondary questions
used to identify the correlation of critical success factors and delay factors.
Table 6.4 summarise the secondary questions for question two, and explains
the objective of each question and statistical method used.
127
6.5.1 Research Question 2 (I)
How do specific critical success factors affect individual critical delay
factors?
Determining the relationship between critical success and delay factors in
general projects was one of the main goals of this study. In other words,
recurring appearances of the success factors with certain delays was sought.
In order to answer research question 2, the project critical success and delay
factors’ evaluation was analysed.
A Pearson correlation coefficient has been used to measure the strength and
direction of the relationship between ratings of critical success and delay
factors on the projects. The null hypothesis is that the correlation coefficient p
is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis is that p is not equal to zero at a
significance level of a + 0.05.
H0: ρ= 0
Hı: ρ≠0
= 0.05
6.5.1.1. Owners
As shown in Table 6.5 there was a significant correlation between all the
seven critical success factors and critical delay factors.
There is a significant correlation between organisational planning (S1)
and all seven delay factors.
There is a significant correlation between the goal commitment of
project manager (S2) and all seven delay factors.
A significant correlation exists between motivation and goal orientation
of the project team (S3) with all seven delay factors.
There is a significant correlation between the clarity of the project’s
scope (S4) and all seven delay factors.
There is a significant correlation between the capability and
experience of the project manager (S5) and all seven delay factors.
128
There is a significant correlation between the safety records (S6) with
all seven delay factors.
A significant correlation is present between control system used for
the project (S7) and all seven critical delay factors.
Table 6.5 Correlation coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Owners
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 S1 r .933** -.873** -.855** -.817** -.874** -.860** -.843** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S2 r -.897** .982** .922** .949** .923** .911** .907 p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S3 r -.933** .915** .946** .929** .970** .981* .932** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S4 r -.907** 1.000** .895** .926** .970** .905** .884** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S5 r -.897** .982** .922** .949** .923** .911* .907** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S6 r .893** .847** .956** .912** .940** .945** .946** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 S7 r -.847* .982** .922** .949** .923** .911** .907** p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Correlation (r) is significant at a = 0.05 level
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 : Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5 : Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2: Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
6.5.1.2. Contractors
As shown in Table 6.6, there are 43 significant correlations at a = 0.05. (r and
p values are listed in table). The correlation between the critical success
factors and delay factors are:
129
Table 6.6 Correlation coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Contractors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
S1 r .931** .926** .887** .935** .864** .37 .931**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .839 .000
S2 r .926** .914** .896*8 .957** .881** .129 .926
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .476 .000
S3 r .927** .926** .887** .935** .864** .370 .931*
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .839 .000
S4 r .691** .684** .868** .670** .816** .0613** .681**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S5 r .864** .911** .865** .916** .854** .119 .907**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .510 .000
S6 r .976** .935** .950** .951** .940** .295 .966**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .096 .000
S7 r 1.000** .997** .938** .977** .921** .240 1.000
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .118 .000 Correlation (r) is significant at a = 0.05 level
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 : Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5 : Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2: Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
There are significant correlations between organisation planning effort
(S1), project manager’s capabilities and experience (S5) and project
team motivation (S3) with all the delay factors, except for delay
caused by subcontractors (D6).
There are significant correlations between the goal commitment of
project manager (S2) and use of control system (S7) and delays
associated with D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D7.
There are strong correlations between the clarity of the project scope
and work definition (S4) with all the critical delay factors.
There are strong correlations between safety record (S6) and the
delay factors, except the delay factors caused by subcontractors (D6).
130
6.5.1.3. Engineers
As shown in Table 6.7, there was a very strong correlation between all the
seven critical success factors and delay factors.
Table 6.7 Correlation Coefficient – Success and Delay Factors by Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
S1 r .888** .899** .898** .866** .884** .900** .937**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S2 r .959** .961** .977** .958** .963** .994** .940**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S3 r .917** .903** .912** .906** .920** .928** .929**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S4 r .938** .962** .946** .937** .925** .955** .968**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S5 r .896** .903** .898** .879** .904** .908** .933**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S6 r .973** .974** .957** .982** .959** .948** .947**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
S7 r .932** .927** .938** .943** .935** .934** .942**
p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Correlation (r) is significant at a = 0.05 level
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 : Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5 : Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2: Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
6.5.1.4 Conclusion
There is a strong correlation between success factors and delay factors for
owners, contractors and engineers. The strong correlations show that
owners, engineers and contractors believe that relationships exist between
the critical success factors and delay factors, and their results reflect that.
The results show owners and engineers strongly agree that there is a
significant correlation between all the critical success factors and all the delay
factors. Contractors disagree that any of the critical success factors will help
131
to reduce delay factors caused by subcontractor performance (D6) and
inadequate contractor experience (D7).
6.5.2 Research Question 2 (II)
Do the relationships between critical success and delay factors vary by
project affiliation (owner/contractor/engineer)? This question examines if
there is any difference in how owners, contractors and engineers evaluate
individual critical success factors, critical delay factors, and the influence of
critical success factors on each delay factor.
An independent sample t test was employed to compare perceptions of
“owner and contractor”, “owner and engineer” and “contractor and engineer”
about critical success factors, critical delay factors, and influence of critical
success factors on each of seven critical delay factors in a general project, by
comparing their respective response means. The null hypothesis is that the
mean responses of owners and contractors are equal, with the significance
level, = 0.05. The means were five points scales where 5 = very good or
completely, 4 = good or a good deal, 3 = fair or moderate amount, 2 = poor
or small amount and 1= very poor or not at all. Detailed result of t-tests can
be found in Appendix B.
6.5.2.1. Owners and Contractors
Critical success factors – (Owners and Contractors)
Ho: owners=contractor
Hı: : owners ≠=contractor
Table (6.8) shows no significant differences in perceptions between owners
and contractors. Owners and contractors agree on the importance of the
seven critical success factors. Detailed results of the t-test can be found in
Appendix B1.
132
Table 6.8 t test – Critical Success Factors – Owners and Contractors
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Owners 4.033 3.933 3.433 3.967 3.933 3.60 3.933
Contractors 3.879 3.727 3.879 4.061 4.091 3.303 3.455 Where: S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of projects cope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
Critical delay factors – Owners and Contractors
There were two significant differences in perception between owners and
contractors. This is shown in Table 6.9 below.
Table 6.9 t test – Critical Delay Factors – owners and contractors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Owner 3.27 3.97 3.67 4.03 3.27 3.33 3.63
Contractor 3.45 3.36 3.03 3.55 2.91 4.09 3.45 Shaded : Significant, p<0.05 at a = 0.05
Where: D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
The first significant difference was that the mean for the owner was higher
than the mean for the contractor for slow decision making (D2), indicating
that the owner thought (D2) was more important than the contractor did (t
=2.1, p = 0.039).The second significant difference occurred when the
contractor evaluated subcontractor performance (D6) higher than the owner
did (t = -2.481, p = 0.019). Contractors blame delays on subcontractors more
than owners do. Detailed results of all t-tests can be found Appendix B2.
133
Differences in the influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors
(Owners and Contractors)
Table 6.10 indicates that contractors perceived project manager’s goal
commitment (S2) and safety precautions and applied procedures (S6), as
being more important in reducing change orders (D3) than owners did.
Table 6.10 t test – Owners and Contractors – Influence of Success Factors on Delay
Factors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
S1 Owners 3.59 3.24 3.40 3.62 3.12 3.00 3.59
Contractors 3.63 3.93 4.20 4.20 3.60 4.42 4.67
S2 Owners 3.06 3.18 2.93 3.22 3.00 3.07 2.94
Contractors 3.32 3.48 4.00 4.00 3.40 4.16 3.80
S3 Owners 2.59 2.88 3.13 3.28 2.94 2.93 3.53
Contractors 3.37 3.22 3.75 3.75 3.25 3.26 3.27
S4 Owners 3.18 3.29 3.40 3.50 3.38 3.21 3.53
Contractors 3.47 3.85 3.75 3.75 3.45 4.16 3.87
S5 Owners 4.06 3.94 3.47 3.00 3.63 3.07 3.76
Contractors 3.68 4.41 4.35 4.35 4.10 4.37 4.67
S6 Owners 2.65 2.76 2.73 3.00 2.75 2.71 2.71
Contractors 2.95 2.78 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 2.53
S7 Owners 3.35 2.76 3.20 3,72 3.00 2.64 3.41
Contractors 3.37 3.63 4.00 4.00 3.80 4.00 4.20 S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of projects scope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Contractors also believed that use of control system (S7) is more important to
reduce slow decision making (D2) and project manager’s capability and
experience (S5) is more influential on inadequate contractor planning (D4).
Similarly contractors evaluated organisation planning (S1), project manager’s
goal commitment (S3), clarity of project scope and definition (S4), project
manager’s capability (S5) and use of control system (S7) as more important
in aiding subcontractors’ performance (D6). Contractors also stated the
influence of organisation planning (S1) and project manager’s capability (S5)
134
has a high influence for delay caused by inadequate contractor experience
(D7). Details of these results can be found in Appendix C1.
6.5.2.2 Owners and Engineers
Critical success factors – (Owners and Engineers)
Ho: owners=engineers
Hı: owners≠engineers
Table 6.11 shows three significant differences in perception between owners
and engineers. The first significant difference is that the mean for owners is
higher than the mean for engineers when considering project manager’s goal
commitment (S2), indicating that owners believe (S2) to be more important
than engineers do.
The second significant difference occurs where the owners rated clarity of
project scope and definition (S4) higher than engineers did. The owners also
rated the third significant difference for safety precautions (S6) as more
important than engineers did. Details of the t-test results can be found in
Appendix B3.
Table 6.11 t test – Critical Success Factors – (Owner and Engineers)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Owners 4.033 3.933 3.433 3.967 3.933 3.60 3.933
Engineers 4.025 3.000 3.725 3.200 3,875 2.675 3.525
Where: S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of projects cope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
135
Critical delay factors – (Owners and Engineers)
Table 6.12 shows the t-test results from owners and engineers. There were
three significant differences in perception between owners and engineers on
delay factors slow decision making (D2), change orders (D3) and inadequate
contractor planning (D4). The results show that owners believe more strongly
than engineers that delays are due to slow decision making (D2) change
orders (D3) and contractor’s inadequate planning (D4). Details of the t-test
results can be found in Appendix B4.
Table 6.12 t test – Critical Delay Factors – owners and engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Owner 3.267 3.967 3.667 4.033 3.267 3.333 3.633
Engineers 2.800 2,800 2.900 2.800 .900 2.975 3.350 Shaded : Significant, p<0.05 at a = 0.05
Where: D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Differences in the influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors
(Owners and Engineers)
Table 6.13 shows that engineers rated project team’s motivation (S3), clarity
of project scope (S4) and project manager’s capability (S5) higher than
owners did on the influence of delay factors caused by lack of communication
(D1). Engineers rated organisational planning (S1), clarity of project scope
(S4) and use of control systems (S7) to avoid delay due to slow decision
(D2), more highly compared to owners’ ratings. Similarly, organisational
planning (S1), project manager’s goal commitment (S2), clarity of project
scope and definition (S4), safety precaution (S6) and use of control system
(S7) has more influence on change orders (D3), as rated by engineers
compared to owners. Details of the t-test results can be found in Appendix
C3.
136
Table 6.13 t test – Owners and Engineers – Influence of Success Factors on Delay
Factors
Engineers 4.07 4.16 4.56 3.41 3.22 4.17 4.36
S2 Owners 3.06 3.18 3.17 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
Engineers 3.70 3.92 4.09 4.22 3.08 3.81 3.69
S3 Owners 2.59 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88
Engineers 3.37 3.21 3.16 2.81 2.94 2.78 4.03
S4 Owners 3.18 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29
Engineers 4.70 4.16 4.06 2.81 3.69 3.56 4.14 S5 Owners 4.06 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 Engineers 4.70 4.16 4.38 4.28 4.33 4.03 4.31 S6 Owners 2.65 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 Engineers 3.17 3.13 3.53 4.28 2.86 2.78 3.50 S7 Owners 3.35 2.76 2,76 2.76 2.76 2.78 2.76 Engineers 3.70 3.68 4.47 3.72 3.67 3.69 4.36 S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of projects cope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Engineers thought project manager’s goal commitment (S2), safety
precaution (S6) and use of control systems (S7) had more effect on
inadequate contractor planning (D4) than owners did. Engineers rated use of
control systems (S7) higher than owners did for the delay caused by finance
and payment of completed work (D5). Organisational planning (S1) and use
of control systems (S7) were more important to engineers in reducing delay
due to subcontractor performance (D6) than they were for owners. Engineers
rated higher than owners did on the influence of success factors of
organisational planning (S1), project teams (S3), clarity of project scope (S4),
safety precaution (S6) and use of control systems (S7) for delay caused by
inadequate contractor experience(D7).
137
6.5.2.3. Contractors and Engineers
Critical success factors – (Contractors and Engineers)
Ho: owners=engineers
Hı: owners ≠engineers
Table 6.14 shows three significant differences. Contractors evaluated project
manager’s goal commitment (S2), clarity of project scope (S4) and safety
precautions (S6) as more important success factors to avoid delay factors,
compared to engineers. Details of the t-test results can be found in Appendix
B5.
Table 6.14 t test – Contractors and Engineers
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Contractors 3.879 3.727 3.879 4.061 4.091 3.303 3.454 Engineers 4.025 3.000 3.725 3.200 3,875 2.675 3.525
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of project scope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
Critical delay factors – (Contractors and Engineers)
For critical delay factors, there were three significant differences in
perception between contractors and engineers. Contractors rated lack of
communication between parties (D1), inadequate contractor planning (D4)
and inadequate contractor experience (D7) more highly than engineers.
Table 6.15 shows results of the critical delay factors survey from contractors
and engineers. Details of the t-test results can be found in Appendix B6.
138
Table 6.15 t test – Critical Delay Factors – contractor and engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Contractors 3.454 3.364 3.030 3.546 2.909 4.091 3.454
Engineers 2.800 2,800 2.900 2.800 2.900 2.975 3.350 Shaded : Significant, p<0.05 at a = 0.05
Where: D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Differences in the influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors
(Contractors and Engineers)
Table 6.16 shows analysis of the results of the t-test from contractors and
engineers on the influence of success factors on delay factors. The results
shows that engineers evaluated clarity of project scope (S4) and project
manager’s capability (S5) as more important than contractors did for the
delay factor lack of communication (D1).
Contractors rated organisational planning (S1), project team motivation (S3),
and clarity of project scope (S4), as more influential than engineers, for delay
caused by inadequate contractor planning (D4) except for safety precaution
(S6) where engineers rate this more highly than contractors. Engineers rated
project motivation (S3) and safety precaution (S6) as more influential on
inadequate contractor experience (D7) than did contractors. Details of the t-
test results can be found in Appendix C2.
139
Table 6.16 t test –Influence of Success Factors on Delay Factors for Contractors and
Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
S1 Contractors 3.63 3.93 4.20 4.20 3.60 4.42 4.67
Engineers 4.07 4.16 4.56 3.41 3.22 4.17 4.36
S2 Contractors 3.32 3.48 4.00 4.00 3.40 4.16 3.80
Engineers 3.70 3.92 4.09 4.22 3.08 3.81 3.69
S3 Contractors 3.37 3.22 3.75 3.75 3.25 3.26 3.27
Engineers 3.37 3.21 3.16 2.81 2.94 2.78 4.03
S4 Contractors 3.47 3.85 3.75 3.75 3.45 4.16 3.87
Engineers 4.70 4.16 4.06 2.81 3.69 3.56 4.14
S5 Contractors 3.68 4.41 4.35 4.35 4.10 4.37 4.67
Engineers 4.70 4.16 4.38 4.28 4.33 4.03 4.31
S6 Contractors 2.95 2.78 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 2.53
Engineers 3.17 3.13 3.53 4.28 2.86 2.78 3.50
S7 Contractors 3.37 3.63 4.00 4.00 3.80 4.00 4.20
Engineers 3.70 3.68 4.47 3.72 3.67 3.69 4.36 S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of projects cope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
6.5.2.4 Conclusion
The t test results primarily show general agreement - with some differences -
in how owners, contractors and engineers evaluated the relations between
the critical success factors, critical delay factors and the influence of critical
success factors on avoiding each critical delay factor.
For owners and contractors (Table 6.10), there were ten significant
correlations out of a possible 49 for the success factor influence in avoiding
critical delay factors, indicating general agreement in most cases. The
differences occur in the delay factors of slow decision making (D2), change
order (D3), inadequate contractor planning (D4), subcontractor performance
(D6), and inadequate contractor experience (D7). The ten significant success
140
factors were evaluated more highly by the contractors than the owners. This
shows that, compared to owners, contractors are more convinced that the
identified success factors have a greater influence on the delay factors.
Contractors identified the use of control system (S7) on delay due to slow
decision making (D2), organisational planning (S1) and safety precaution
(S6) on change order (D3), and project manager capability (S5) on
contractor’s inadequate planning (D4) as most influential. Similarly, they
believed that the success factors: organisational planning (S1), project
manager’s goal commitment (S2), clarity of project scope (S4), project
manager’s capability (S5), and use of control system were more influential on
delay due to subcontractors (D6). These differences in higher rankings by
contractors compared to owners may be explained by their level of
involvement in the project, where contractors are more involved than owners.
The differences could be that both parties (owners and contractors) tended to
evaluate factors related to their own direct interest more highly than the other
party.
For owners and engineers (Table 6.13), there are 26 significant correlations.
The differences show that engineers believe all the success factors have
greater influence on the delay factors than did the owners. For example,
engineers believe organisational planning (S1) has a greater influence on the
delay factors of slow decision making (D2), change orders (D3), safety
precautions (D6) and use of control system (D7). Project manager’s goal
commitment (S2) is more influential on the delay factors of change orders
(D3) and contractor’s inadequate planning (D4).
Similarly, clarity of project scope and definition (S4) has a higher influence on
delay caused by lack of communication (D1), slow decision making (D2),
change orders (D3) and inadequate contractor experience (D7). The success
factor of a project manager’s capability (S5) has a greater influence on the
delay factor lack of communication (D1). Safety precaution (S6) is ranked
higher for delay caused by change orders (D3), contractors inadequate
planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience (D7). Engineers also
141
believe the success factor use of control system (S7) has a greater influence
on all the delay factors except for the delay factor lack of communication
(D1). These differences may be explained by the level of involvement in the
project, with engineers more involved than owners.
For contractors and engineers (Table 6.16), there were eight significant
correlations. The differences are engineers ranked highly the success
factors: clarity of project scope and definition (S4) and project manager’s
capability (S5) for the delay factor lack of communication (D1). Engineers
believe that safety precaution (S6) is more important for delay caused by
inadequate contractor planning (D4), compared with contractors, who
believed organisational planning (S1), project team motivation (S3) and
clarity of project scope (S4) have a greater influence. Engineers ranked
project team motivation (S3) and safety precaution (S6), as more influential
on the delay factor inadequate contractor planning (D4) when compared with
contractors’ ratings.
Contractors and engineers showed less significant correlations for critical
success factors and delay factors, compared to the correlations between
owners and contractors, and owners and engineers. This indicates that
contractors and engineers agreed with each other more than any other
group. Their agreement may be explained by the level of involvement in the
project, with both parties more involved than owners.
6.5.3. Research Question 2 (III) – Individual group
Does the ranking of the relative influence of critical success factors on
each critical delay factor vary between project respondents?
To answer this section’s primary question, it was necessary to examine
respondents’ data from a number of different perspectives, which meant
combining or isolating certain groups’ results with others. This was done in
the following ways:
142
Owners, contractors and engineers were examined individually in
order to determine which critical success factors they perceived to be
most influential in avoiding or preventing each delay factor.
Owners and contractors, owners and engineers and contractors and
engineers were examined collectively to reveal which success factors
they perceived most critical in avoiding or preventing each delay
factor.
Owners, contractors and engineers were collectively examined in order to
discover which critical success factors were most helpful in preventing each
delay factor.
6.5.3.1 Owner
Statistical Method
A one-way ANOVA was used to determine the individual owners’ perceptions
of the seven critical success factors’ relative influence on each critical delay
factor, through comparison of the critical success factors’ means. This
statistical measure was also used to assess the remaining groups,
contractors and engineers. The null hypothesis is that the mean responses
for the seven success factors are equal; the alternative hypothesis is that the
mean responses are not equal.
Ho: ssı=s2=s3=…=s7
Hı : Not all the s are equal
Significance level = 0.05
In this section data will be presented for each groups’ analysis by providing a
general description of the group test, along with which success factors were
found to be most influential in avoiding each delay factor. Post-hoc
examination was carried out to determine which success factors were most
significant in avoiding the same delay factors. Details of one-way Anova
results can be found in Appendix D.
143
Results Description
The data from surveys of owners was evaluated for the influence of success
factors in avoiding or preventing delay factors, in order to develop a clearer
vision of which success factor are most influential in avoiding or preventing
one or more of the delay factors. As shown in Table 6.18 and Table 6.19, the
group (owners) evaluation data results such as mean, standard deviation,
and group size (n) were extracted from the SPSS output, which computed
and tabulated the data in Table 6.17. Data was then sorted by mean from
highest to lowest for each delay factor as shown in Table 6.18.
Table 6.17 One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners
Delay 1 Delay 2
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St,D n Sort Rank
S1 3.6316 1.46099 19 3.6842 5 S1 3.2353 1.34766 17 3.9412 5
S2 3.3158 1.41628 19 3.6316 1 S2 3.1765 1.23669 17 3.2941 4
S3 3.3684 1.42246 19 3.4737 4 S3 2.8824 1.26897 17 3.2353 1
S4 3.4737 1.54087 19 3.3684 7 S4 3.2941 1.15999 17 3.1765 2
S5 3.6842 1.45498 19 3.3684 3 S5 3.9412 1.24853 17 2.9412 7
S6 2.9474 1.31122 19 3.3158 2 S6 2.7647 1.09141 17 2.8824 3
S7 3.3684 1.34208 19 2.9474 6 S7 2.9412 1.29762 17 2.7647 6
Delay 3 Delay 4
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 3.4000 1.35225 15 3.4667 5 S1 3.6111 1.46082 18 3.7222 7
S2 2.9333 1.27988 15 3.4000 1 S2 3.2222 1.47750 18 3.6111 1
S3 3.1333 1.30201 15 3.4000 4 S3 3.2778 1.44733 18 3.5000 6
S4 3.4000 1.35225 15 3.2000 7 S4 3.5000 1.46528 18 3.2778 3
S5 3.4667 1.45733 15 3.1333 3 S5 3.0000 1.49509 18 3.2222 2
S6 2.7333 1.22280 15 2.9333 2 S6 3.0000 1.49509 18 3.0000 5
S7 3.2000 1.32017 15 2.7333 6 S7 3.7222 1.27443 18 3.0000 6
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D N Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 3.1250 1.50000 16 3.6250 5 S1 3.0000 1.35873 14 3.2143 4
144
S2 3.0000 1.41421 16 3.3750 4 S2 3.0714 1.32806 14 3.0714 2
S3 2.9375 1.52616 16 3.1250 1 S3 2.9286 1.26881 14 3.0714 5
S4 3.3750 1.36015 16 3.0000 2 S4 3.2143 1.42389 14 3.0000 1
S5 3.6250 1.36015 16 3.0000 7 S5 3.0714 1.32806 14 2.9286 3
S6 2.7500 1.41412 16 2.9375 3 S6 2.7143 1.38278 14 2.7143 6
S7 3.0000 1.41259 16 2.7500 6 S7 2.6429 1.27745 14 2.6429 7
Delay 7
Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 3.5882 1.27764 17 3.7647 5
S2 2.9412 1.51948 17 3.5882 1
S3 3.5294 1.32842 17 3.5294 3
S4 3.5294 1.46277 17 3.5294 4
S5 3.7647 1.25147 17 3.4118 7
S6 2.7059 1.35852 17 2.9412 2
S7 3.4118 1.32565 17 2.7059 6
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Table 6.18 One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Owners
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5 5(6,7) 5 7 5 4 5(6)
S 1 4 1 1 4 2 1
S 4 1 4 6 1 5 3
S 7 2 7 3 2 1 4
S 3 7 3 2 7 3 7
S 2 3(5) 2 5 3 6 2
S 6 6 6 6 6 7 6
Least *X means that there are significant differences between two success factors on the same delay factor, x success factor is more influential than y success factor in avoiding the same delay factor
145
Results of One Way ANOVA
As shown in the Table 6.19, owners rated project manager capability and
experience (S5) as the most influential factor in avoiding all delay factors
except for inadequate contractor planning (D4) and safety precaution and
procedures (D5). Organisational planning (S1) ranked second in avoiding
most delay factors. The least influential factors for almost all delay factors
was the safety precaution and applied procedures (S6). Details of the results
of the One Way ANOVA is shown in Appendix D1 and D2.
Post – Hoc Examination - Owners
To determine precisely which success factor is most influential at avoiding or
preventing delay factors, post hoc examinations at a = 0.05 comparison
reveals significant differences between project team’s motivation and goal
orientation (S3), capability and experience of project manager (S5), safety
precaution and applied procedure (S6) and the use of control system (S7), all
being more influential in the avoidance of slow decision making (D2), with the
significant difference (p value 0.04, 0.07 and 0.020).
A similar relationship can be observed between project manager capability
and experience (S5), which was more influential in avoiding inadequate
contractor experience (D7) than safety precaution and applied procedure
(S6). Details of Post-Hoc results are shown in Appendix D3.
Table 6.19 One Way ANOVA Results for Owners (Post – Hoc)
Delay (I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I – J) (p)
D2 3 5 -1.05882 .014
5 6 1.17647 .007
5 7 1.00000 .020
D7 5 6 1.05882 .026 *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
146
6.5.3.2 Contractors
Table 6.20 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA for contractors. A
summary of the result for each delay factor was transformed as shown in
Table 6.22. The result of the analysis shows that contractor evaluations for
project manager capability and experience (S5) is the most influential for
most of the delay factors except for the delay factors subcontractor
performance (D6) and inadequate contractor experience (D7), which
contractors thought could be best avoided by organisational planning (S1).
Organisational planning (S1) is ranked second. Contractors indicated the
least influential success factors for all the delay factors were safety
precaution and applied procedure (S6). Detailed results can be found in
Appendix D4 and D5.
Table 6.20 One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors
Delay 1 Delay 2
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St,D n Sort Rank
S1 3.5882 1.50245 17 3.8235 5 S1 3.9259 1.41220 27 4.4074 5
S2 3.0588 1.34493 17 3.5882 1 S2 3.4815 1.18874 27 3.9259 1
S3 2.5882 1.32565 17 3.4118 4 S3 3.2222 .93370 27 3.8519 4
S4 3.4118 1.46026 17 3.3529 7 S4 3.8519 1.37851 27 3.6296 7
S5 3.8235 1.46779 17 3.0588 2 S5 4.4074 .88835 27 3.4815 2
S6 2.6471 1.53872 17 2.6471 6 S6 2.7778 .80064 27 3.2222 3
S7 3.3529 1.32009 17 2.5882 3 S7 3.6296 1.07946 27 2.7778 6
Delay 3 Delay 4
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 4.2000 1.00525 20 4.3500 5 S1 4.1250 .95743 16 4.2500 5
S2 4.0000 1.29777 20 4.2000 1 S2 3.0625 1.38894 16 4.1250 1
S3 3.7500 1.16416 20 4.0000 2 S3 3.1250 1.31022 16 3.8125 7
S4 3.7500 1.16416 20 4.0000 7 S4 3.6875 1.01448 16 3.6875 4
S5 4.3500 .98809 20 3.7500 4 S5 4.2500 1.12546 16 3.1250 3
S6 3.0000 1.02598 20 3.7500 3 S6 2.6250 .95743 16 3.0625 2
S7 4.0000 1.21395 20 3.0000 6 S7 3.8125 .91059 16 2.6250 6
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 3.6000 1.39170 20 4.1000 5 S1 4.4211 1.01739 19 4.4211 1
S2 3.4000 1.14248 20 3.8000 7 S2 4.1579 .89834 19 4.3684 5
S3 3.2500 1.25132 20 3.6000 1 S3 3.2632 .87191 19 4.1579 2
S4 3.4500 1.19097 20 3.4500 4 S4 4.1579 .89834 19 4.1579 4
S5 4.1000 1.25237 20 3.4000 2 S5 4.3684 .76089 19 4.0000 7
S6 2.7500 1.25132 20 3.2500 3 S6 3.0000 1.05409 19 3.2632 3
147
S7 3.8000 1.39925 20 2.7500 6 S7 4.0000 .88192 19 3.0000 6
Delay 7
Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 4.6667 .61721 15 4.6667 1
S2 3.8000 1.37321 15 4.6667 5
S3 3.2667 1.38701 15 4.2000 7
S4 3.8667 1.35576 15 3.8667 4
S5 4.6667 .89974 15 3.8000 2
S6 2.5333 .99043 15 3.2667 3
S7 4.2000 .94112 15 2.5333 6
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Table 6.21 One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Contractors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5(6) 5(6,7) 5(6) 5(6) 5(6) 1 1
S 1(3) 1(3,6) 1(6) 1(2,3,6) 7 5 5
S 4 4(6) 2(6) 7 1(6) 2 7
S 7 7 7 4(6) 4 4 4
S 2 2(5,6) 4(6) 3(5) 2 7 2
S 3(5) 3(4) 3(6) 2(5) 3(5) 3 3
S 6 6(7) 6(7) 6(7) 6(7) 6 6
Least *X means that there are significant differences between two success factors on the same delay factor, x success factor is more influential than y success factor in avoiding the same delay factor S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Post – Hoc Examination – Contractors
On post hoc examination of the contractor group, as shown in the Table 6.22,
all the critical delay factors had significant differences between critical
success factors except for subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate
contractor experience (D7). Detailed results can be found in Appendix 6.
148
Table 6.22 One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors (Post – Hoc)
Delay (I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I – J) (p)
D1 1 3 1.00000 .043
3 5 -1.23529 .013
5 6 1.17647 .018
D2 1 3 .70370 .022
1 6 1.14815 .000
2 5 - .92593 .003
2 6 .70370 .022
3 4 -.62963 .040
4 6 1.07407 .001
5 6 1.62963 .000
5 7 .77778 .012
6 7 - .85185 .006
D3 1 6 1.20000 .001
2 6 1.00000 .006
3 6 .75000 .037
4 6 .75000 .037
5 6 1.35000 .000
6 7 -1.00000 .006
D4 1 2 1.06250 .008
1 3 1.00000 .012
1 6 1.500000 .000
2 5 -1.18750 .003
3 5 -1.23500 .005
4 6 1.06250 .008
5 6 1.62500 .000
6 7 -1.18750 .003
D5 1 6 .85000 .036
3 5 -.85000 .036
5 6 1.35000 .001
6 7 -1.50000 .010 *The mean difference is significant at the o,o5 level S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
149
6.5.3.3 Engineers
Table 6.23 shows the resulting analysis of one-way ANOVA for contractors.
A summary of the analysis for each delay factor is shown in Table 6.24. From
tables 6.23 and 6.24 it can be seen that engineers evaluate organisational
planning (S1) as the most influential factor in avoiding delay factors that
occur from slow decision making (D2), change orders (D3), safety
precautions (D5) and inadequate contractor experience (D7).
Similarly, the capability and experience of the project manager (S5) in
reducing delay factors occurs due to lack of communication between parties
(D1), inadequate contractor planning (D4), and finance and payment of
completed work (D5). Safety procedure (S6) was the least influential success
factor except for delay due to change orders (D3) and inadequate contractor
planning (D4). Detailed results can be found in Appendix D7 and D8.
Table 6.23 One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers
Delay 1 Delay 2
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St,D n Sort Rank
S1 4.0667 .82768 30 4.7000 5 S1 4.1579 .91611 38 4.1579 1
S2 3.7000 .87691 30 4.3667 4 S2 3.9211 1.30242 38 4.1579 4
S3 3.3667 .92786 30 4.0667 1 S3 3.2015 1.59658 38 4.1579 5
S4 4.3667 .99943 30 3.7000 2 S4 4.1579 .91611 38 3.9211 2
S5 4.7000 .59596 30 3.7000 7 S5 4.1579 .91611 38 3.6842 7
S6 3.1667 1.17688 30 3.3667 3 S6 3.1316 1.43642 38 3.2015 3
S7 3.7000 .87691 30 3.1667 6 S7 3.6842 1.41622 38 3.1316 6
Delay 3 Delay 4
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 4.5625 .61892 32 4.5625 1 S1 3.4063 1.34066 32 4.2813 5
S2 4.0938 1.22762 32 4.4688 7 S2 4.2188 .87009 32 4.2813 6
S3 3.1563 1.32249 32 4.3750 5 S3 2.8125 1.22967 32 4.2188 2
S4 4.0625 1.10534 32 4.0938 2 S4 2.8125 1.22967 32 3.7188 7
S5 4.3750 .79312 32 4.0625 4 S5 4.2813 .99139 32 3.4063 1
S6 3.5313 1.07716 32 3.5313 6 S6 4.2813 1.05446 32 2.8125 3
S7 4.4688 .76134 32 3.1563 3 S7 3.7188 1.08462 32 2.8125 4
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D n Sort Rank Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 3.2222 1.56955 36 4.3333 5 S1 4.1667 1.10841 36 4.1667 1
S2 3.0833 1.50000 36 3.6944 4 S2 3.8056 1.19090 36 4.0278 5
S3 2.9444 1.30809 36 3.6667 7 S3 2.7778 1.33333 36 3.8056 2
150
S4 3.6944 1.47007 36 3.2222 1 S4 3.5556 1.25230 36 3.6944 7
S5 4.3333 .95618 36 3.0833 2 S5 4.0278 1.15847 36 3.5556 4
S6 2.8611 1.41730 36 2.9444 3 S6 2.7778 1.35459 36 2.7778 3
S7 3.6667 1.41421 36 2.8611 6 S7 3.6944 1.26083 36 2.7778 6
Delay 7
Mean St.D n Sort Rank
S1 4.3611 .86694 36 4.3611 1
S2 3.6944 1.06421 36 4.3611 7
S3 4.0278 1.08196 36 4.3056 5
S4 4.1389 1.09942 36 4.1389 4
S5 4.3056 .92023 36 4.0278 3
S6 3.5000 1.10841 36 3.6944 2
S7 4.3611 .89929 36 3.5000 6
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Table 6.24 One Way ANOVA Summary Results for Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5(6,7) 1(3,6) 1(3,6 5(7) 5(6,7) 1(3,4,6) 1(2,6)
S 4(6,7) 4(6) 7 6(7) 4(6) 5(6) 7
S 1(3,5,6) 5(6) 5(6) 2(3,4) 7 2(3,6) 5(6)
S 2(4,5,6) 2(3,6) 2(3,6) 7 1(5) 7 4(6)
S 7 7 4(6) 1(2,3,4,5,6) 2(5) 4(6) 3(6)
S 3(4,5) 3(4,5) 6(7) 3(5,6,7) 3(4,5,7) 3(45,7) 2(5,7)
S 6(7) 6 3(4,5,7) 4(5,6,7) 6(7) 6(7) 6(7)
Least *X means that there are significant differences between two success factors on the same delay factor, x success factor is more influential than y success factor in avoiding the same delay factor S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control systems
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
151
Post – Hoc Examination – Engineer
Table 6.25 shows the results of post-hoc examinations for engineers, which
demonstrate that engineers have identified a significant difference for all the
critical success factors and critical delay factors. (Detailed results can be
found in Appendix D9)
Table 6.25 One Way ANOVA Results for Engineers (Post – Hoc)
Delay (I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I – J) (p)
D1 1 3 .70000 .003
1 5 -.63333 .008
1 6 .90000 .000
2 4 -.66667 .005
2 5 -1.00000 .000
2 6 .53333 .025
3 4 -1.00000 .000
3 5 -1.33333 .000
4 6 1.20000 .000
4 7 .66667 .005
5 6 1.53333 .000
5 7 1.00000 .000
6 7 -.53333 .025
D2 1 3 .94737 .001
1 6 1.02362 .000
2 3 .71053 .013
2 6 .78947 .006
3 4 -.94737 .001
3 5 -.94737 .001
4 6 1.02632 .000
5 6 1.02632 .000
D3 1 3 1.40625 .000
1 6 1.03125 .000
2 3 .93750 .000
2 6 1.03125 .028
3 4 -.90625 .000
3 5 -1.21875 .000
3 7 -.37500 .000
152
4 6 .53125 .038
5 6 .84375 .001
6 7 -.93750 .000
D4 1 2 -.81250 .004
1 3 .59375 .036
1 4 .59375 .036
1 5 -.87500 .002
1 6 -.87500 .002
2 3 1.40625 .000
2 4 .59375 .036
3 5 -1/46875 .000
3 6 -1.46875 .000
3 7 -.90625 .001
4 5 -1.46875 .000
4 6 -1.46875 .000
4 7 -.90625 .001
5 7 .56250 .047
6 7 .56250 .047
D5 1 5 -1.11111 .001
2 5 -1.25000 .000
3 4 -.75000 .023.
3 5 -1.38889 .000
3 7 -.72222 .028
4 6 .83333 .012
5 6 1.47222 .000
5 7 ..6667 .043
6 7 -.80556 .015
D6 1 3 1.38889 .000
1 4 .61111 .038
1 6 1.38889 .000
2 3 1.02778 .001
2 6 1.02778 .001
3 4 -.77778 .008
3 5 -1.25000 .000
3 7 -.91667 .002
4 6 .7778 .008
5 6 1.25000 .000
6 7 -.91667 .002
D7 1 2 .66667 .006
153
1 6 .86111 .000
2 5 -.61111 .000
2 7 -.66667 .006
3 6 .52778. .028
4 6 .63889 .008
5 6 .80556 .001
6 7 -.86111 .000
*The mean difference is significant at the
o,o5 level
S1: Organisational planning
S2: Project manager’s goal commitment
S3: Project team’s motivation and goal
orientation
S4: Clarity of the project scope and work
definition
S5: Project manager’s capabilities and
experience
S6: Safety precautions and applied
procedures
S7: Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between
parties
D2 : Slow decision making
D3 : Change orders
D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning
D5 : Finance and payment of completed
work
D6 : Subcontractor performance
D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
6.5.3.4. Conclusion
Testing each respondent’s group separately using a one-way ANOVA
revealed some agreement between owners, contractors and engineers,
especially for the most critical success factor influences. It is clear that a
project manager’s capability and experience (S5) was the most influential
success factor for all groups, and there was strong agreement between all
groups that safety precaution and procedures (S6) was the least influential
success factor.
Owners and contractors differed with regards to which success factors were
most influential in helping to avoid delays caused by inadequate contractor
planning (D4), subcontractor performance (D6), and inadequate contractor
experience (D7). Owners believed the use of control system (S7) would help
to remedy these delays, while contractors believed that the project manager’s
capabilities (S5) had a significant influence on contractor’s inadequate
154
planning (D4) and organisational planning (S1) for delays caused by
subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate contractor experience (D7).
Engineers agreed with the contractors’ opinion that the project manager’s
capabilities (S5) are highly influential on contractor’s inadequate planning
(D4) and organisational planning (S1) for delays caused by subcontractors
(D6) and inadequate contractor experience (D7).
When compared to contractors and engineers, contractors believed a project
manager’s capability (S5) was the most influential factor in reducing delay
factors caused by slow decision making (D2) and change orders (D3),
compared to engineers who believed organisational planning (S1) was the
most influential in reducing delay factors caused by slow decision making
(D2) and change orders (D3).
For delay factors, D3 and D4, contractors thought safety precaution (S6) was
the least influential factor, which differed to engineers who believe project
team motivation and goal orientation (S5) and clarity of project scope and
definition (S3) were least influential in avoiding delay factors caused by
change orders (D3) and inadequate contractor planning (D4).
Owners and engineers differed in their ranking for delay factors slow decision
making (D2), change orders (D4), subcontractors (D6), and inadequate
contractor experience (D7). Owners believed a project manager’s capability
(S5) will help to reduce these delays while engineers believed that
organisational planning (S1) was more influential in avoiding those delays.
For delays caused by inadequate contractor experience (D7), owners
believed use of control system (S7) would help to reduce delays while
engineers believed project manager’s capabilities (S5) would help to reduce
these delays. Owners thought that project manager’s capabilities (S5) was
the most important success factor for the delay factor inadequate contractor
experience (D7), compared to engineers who ranked organisational planning
effort (S1) as most important for this delay factor.
155
The difference in the least influential factor was examined from owners’,
contractors’ and engineer’ perspectives. One way ANOVA results
demonstrated significant differences for the delay factors change orders (D3),
inadequate contractor planning (D4), and subcontractors (D6). Owners
believed safety precautions (S6) was the least influential factor for change
orders (D3) and inadequate contractor planning (D4), and use of control
system (S7) for the delay factor subcontractor performance (D6). Engineers
believed project’s team motivation (S3) was the least influential for delay
factors change orders (D3), clarity of project scope (S4), inadequate
contractor planning (D4) and safety precaution (S6) for delays caused by the
subcontractor. Contractors strongly believed that safety precaution (S6) was
the least influential success factor for all the delay factors.
Generally all three groups were in agreement regarding the greatest
influential success factors and least influential success factors at avoiding
delay factors, with minor agreement in the middle range. The differences in
opinion may be due to the fact that owners tend to view problems from a top
down approach and are not solely focussed on the project construction
process. Engineers show more concern for the success factors safety
precaution (S6) on delay factors, and this may be because engineers take
safety precautions more seriously compared to owners and contractors,
since they are concerned about the potential delays caused by safety
mishaps. Additionally, the nature of their work causes them to be concerned
with safety.
Contractors and engineers showed more significance in the ranking of
success factors’ influence when compare to owners. This is also shown in
the contractors and engineers Post Hoc results. Results showed more
significance in the ranking of critical success factors by contractors and
engineers than by owners (see Post-hoc results at appendix B, C, and D).
This may be because contractors and engineers were closer to the project
process environment, and therefore possessed a clearer knowledge of the
field and construction processes than did owners.
156
6.5.4. Research Question 2(III) – Combined Groups
In order to compare the responses of all groups, three separate groups of
two way ANOVA tests were conducted. These tests examined the
differences among groups: owners and contractors; owners and engineers;
contractors and engineers; and owners, contractors and engineers, in order
to pinpoint the perception of relative influence for the seven critical success
factors on each individual critical delay factor by comparing means.
Statistical Method – Two Way ANOVA
Critical factors relationships were tested between groups by using a two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA), which compared how the groups perceive the
relative influence of all seven critical success and delay factors by comparing
their means. In order to determine which factors were most influential in
preventing each delay factor, this test also examined the success factors
effect, main group effect, and group by success factors (interaction).
Success Factors Effect: This test examined whether or not the two
groups as a whole thought some success factors had more or less
influence than others to prevent or avoid each of the seven delay
factors, which can be observed through post-hoc analysis. The null
hypothesis is that the mean responses for the seven success factors
are equal; the alternative hypothesis is that the mean responses are
not equal for each participating group:
H0:s1=s2=s3=…=s7
Hı: not all the s is equal
Group Main Effect: This test examined whether one group (i.e. owners
vs contractors, owners vs engineers and contractors vs engineers)
think that the success factors as a whole, i.e., the seven success
factors together, have more influence than the other group, on each of
the seven delay factors.
157
Ho:[(sı0wners+s20wners+…+s7оwners)/7]=[(s1contractors+s2
contractors +……+ s7 contractors)/7]
H1:[(s1owners+s2owners+…+s7owners)/7]≠[(s1contractors+s2
contractors+…+s7contractors)/7]
Significance level = 0.05
Group by Success Factors (Interaction): This test determined whether
the ranking of success factors for a particular delay is different or the
same across the two groups. If the rankings are very similar, the
interaction will not be significant. The null hypothesis is that the
ranking for success factors between two groups are equal; the
alternative hypothesis is that the ranking is not equal. For each delay
factor (D1 to D7):
Ho:[(Ranksı0wners=Ranks1contractors…,Ranks7owners =
Ranks7contractors
Ho:[(Ranksı0wners≠Ranks1contractors…,Ranks7owners ≠
Ranks7contractors
Significance level = 0.05
6.5.4.1. Owners and Contractors
As stated earlier, the aim is to gather the opinions of the response groups
individually, as well as collectively in order to examine their similarities and
differences, which could then lead to a more detailed examination of the
relationship between success and delay factors. In this section data from the
tests and their results will be presented in the form of results describing
success factors effect, group main effect, interaction and a conclusion for all
the group cases. (Detailed Two Way ANOVA results are shown in Appendix
E1).
158
Table 6.26 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners and Contractors
Source D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Success Factors NO YES YES YES YES YES YES Group NO YES YES NO YES YES YES Interaction NO YES NO YES NO NO YES D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Results Described
By examining owners’ and contractors’ data collectively, as shown in Table
6.26, the results demonstrate that there is a success factors’ main effect for
all success factors in avoiding most delay factors, except for lack of
communication between parties (D1). There was a group main effect for slow
decision making (D2), change orders (D3), finance and payment of
completed work (D5), subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate
contractor experience (D7), and two group by factors interaction for
inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience
(D7).
An examination of the two way ANOVA results in table 6.27 not only shows
that certain critical success factors were seen as having a greater influence
in preventing individual critical delay factors, but that the pattern of results
was very similar across all seven delay factors. Specifically, respondents
indicated that project manager capability and management (S5) and
organisational planning (S1) are the most influential factors in preventing
nearly all seven delay factors. Similarly safety precaution and applied
procedure (S6) was seen as the least influential factors in preventing the
seven delay factors.
159
Table 6.27 Two Way ANOVA Results for Owners and Contractors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5(3,6) 5(6,7) 5(6) 1(3,4,5) 5(6) 5(6) 5(6)
S 1(6) 1(3,5,6) 1(6) 7 4(6) 1(3,6) 1(3,6)
S 4 4(5,6) 7 5(6,7) 7 4(6) 7
S 7 2(5,6) 4(6) 4(5,6,7) 1(6) 2(3,6) 4(6)
S 2 7 2(6) 3(5,6,7) 2(5) 7 3
S 3 3(4,5) 3(6) 2(3,4,5) 3(5) 3(4,5) 2(6)
S 6 6(7) 6(7) 6 6(7) 6(7) 6(7)
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Success Factors Effect
Results of each of the seven individual 2 (Group) x 7 (Success Factor) two-
way ANOVA tests demonstrated a significant effect for success factors
(range of result: F (6,322) = 5.909, p < 0.001 to F (6,231) =3.595, p < .019, a
=0.5). That is, for each of the seven delay factors, respondents identified
differences in the influence of the seven critical success factors on each
critical delay factor.
Group Main Effect
The examination of the main effect for groups reveals significant effects for
slow decision making (D2), change orders (D3), finance and payment of
completed work (D5), subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate
contractor experience (D7). Contractors evaluated the combined influence of
success factors as more influential in preventing delay caused by slow
decision making (D2), change orders (D3), finance and payment of
completed work (D5), subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate
contractor experience (D7), than did owners. Table 6.28 shows the results of
160
the main effect from the perception of owners and contractors. Detail of each
delay factor on group main effect is shown in Tables 6.28a, 6.28b, 6.28c,
6.28d and 6.28e. (Detailed main effect results can be found in Appendix E2)
Table 6.28 Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)
DF (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Mean ( I – J ) Sig. (p)
D2 3.6138 3.1765 .4973 .002
D3 3.8643 3.1810 .6833 .000
D5 3.4786 3.1161 .3625 .034
D6 3.9098 2.9490 .9608 .000
D7 3.8571 3.3529 .5042 .000 D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Table 6.28a Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)-D2
Delay 2 (Slow decision making)
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 27 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.2353 1.34766 3.9259 1.41220 3.5806 5
2 3.1765 1.23669 3.4815 1.18874 3.3290 1
3 2.8824 1.26897 3.2222 .93370 3.0523 4
4 3.2941 1.15999 3.8519 1.37851 3.5730 2
5 3.9412 1.24853 4.4074 .88835 4.1743 7
6 2.7647 1.09141 2.7778 .80064 2.7713 3
7 2.9412 1.29762 3.6296 1.07946 3.2854 6
M 3.1765 3.6138 Where SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
161
Table 6.28b Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)-D3
Delay 3
Owner n =15 Contractor n= 20 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.4000 1.35225 4.2000 1.00525 3.8000 5
2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0000 1.29777 3.4667 1
3 3.1333 1.30201 3.7500 1.16416 3.4417 7
4 3.4000 1.35225 3.7500 1.16416 3.5750 4
5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3500 .98809 3.9084 2
6 2.7333 1.22280 3.0000 1.02598 2.8667 3
7 3.2000 1.32017 4.0000 1.21395 3.6000 6
M 3.1810 3.8643 Where SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
Table 6.28c Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)-D5
Delay 5
Owner n = 16 Contractor n= 20
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.1250 1.50000 3.6000 1.39170 3.3625 5 2 3.0000 1.41421 3.4000 1.14248 3.2000 4 3 2.9375 1.52616 3.2500 1.25132 3.0938 7 4 3.3750 1.36015 3.4500 1.19097 3.4125 1 5 3.6250 1.36015 4.1000 1.25237 3.8625 2 6 2.7500 1.39044 2.7500 1.25132 2.7500 3 7 3.0000 1.41421 3.8000 1.39925 3.4000 6 M 3.1161 3.4786 Where SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
162
Table 6.28d Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)-D6
Delay 6
Owner n = 14 Contractor n= Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.35873 4.4211 1.01739 3.7106 5
2 3.0714 1.32806 4.1579 .89834 3.6147 1
3 2.9286 1.26881 3.2632 .87191 3.0959 4
4 3.2143 1.42389 4.1579 .89834 3.6861 2
5 3.0714 1.32806 4.3684 .76089 3.7199 7
6 2.7143 1.38278 3.0000 1.05409 2.8572 3
7 2.6429 1.27745 4.0000 .88192 3.3215 6
M 2.9490 3.9098 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
Table 6.28e Group Main Effect (Owners and Contractors)-D7
Delay 7
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 15
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.5882 1.27764 4.6667 .61721 4.1275 5
2 2.9412 1.51948 3.8000 1.37321 3.3706 1
3 3.5294 1.32842 3.2667 1.38701 3.3981 7
4 3.5294 1.46277 3.8667 1.35576 3.6981 4
5 3.7647 1.25147 4.6667 .89974 4.2157 3
6 2.7059 1.35852 2.5333 .99043 2.6196 2
7 3.4118 1.32565 4.2000 .94112 3.8059 6
M 3.3529 3.8571 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of control system
163
Group by Success Factors (Interaction)
Tables 6.29, 6.29a and 6.29b show there were significant group by success
factor interactions in the case of slow decision making (D2), inadequate
contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience (D7). An
examination of post-hoc comparison suggests that the relative ranking of
influence for each of seven success factors in preventing slow decision
making (D2), inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor
experience (D7) was viewed differently by owners and contractors.
Owners considered clarity of project scope of work (S4) and project
manager’s goal commitment (S2) more influential than did contractors, and
contractors ranked organisational planning (S1) and safety precaution and
applied procedure (S7) as more influential than did owners. Owners and
contractors agreed that project manager’s capability and experience (S5) is
the most influential success factor, and project team’s goal and motivation
(S3) and project manager’s capabilities and experience (S6) are the least
influential success factors for slow decision making (D2).
Owners identified safety precautions (S7) as the most influential success
factor for inadequate contractor planning (D4), while contractors believed
project manager capabilities and experience (S5) was the most influential
factor for inadequate contractor planning (D4). Owners also believed that
project manager goal commitments (S2), project team’s motivation and goal
orientation (S3) and clarity of project scope and work definition (S4) to be
more influential than did contractors.
For inadequate contractor experience (D7), owners believed organisational
planning (S1) and project team’s motivation and goal orientation (S3) were
more influential to avoid inadequate contractor experience (D7) than did
contractors, whilst contractors thought safety precaution (S7) and project
manager’s goal commitment (S2) were more influential than did owners. Both
groups agreed that project manager’s capabilities and experience (S5) was
the most influential success factor, whilst safety precautions and applied
164
procedure (S6) was the least influential success factor for inadequate
contractor experience (D7).
Table 6.29 Interaction in D2
Owners D2 Contractors D2
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 3.2353 3.9412 S5 S5 4.4074 3.9259 1
2 3.1765 3.2941 S4 S1 3.9259 3.4815 2
3 2.8824 3.2353 S1 S4 3.8519 3.2222 3
4 3.2941 3.1765 S2 S7 3.6296 3.8519 4
5 3.9412 2.9412 S7 S2 3.4815 4.4074 5
6 2.7647 2.8824 S3 S3 3.2222 2.7778 6
7 2.9412 2.7647 S6 S6 2.7778 3.6296 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors, Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.29a Interaction in D4
Owners D4 Contractors D4
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 3.6111 3.7222 S7 S5 4.2500 4.1250 1
2 3.2222 3.6111 S1 S1 4.1250 3.0625 2
3 3.2778 3.5000 S4 S7 3.8125 3.1250 3
4 3.5000 3.2778 S3 S4 3.6875 3.6875 4
5 3.0000 3.2222 S2 S3 3.1250 4.2500 5
6 3.0000 3.0000 S5 S2 3.0625 2.6250 6
7 3.7222 3.0000 S6 S6 2.6250 3.8125 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors, Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
165
Table 6.29b Interaction in D7
Owners D7 Contractors D7
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 3.5882 3.7647 S5 S5 4.6667 4.1275 1
2 2.9412 3.5882 S1 S7 4.2000 3.8000 2
3 3.5294 3.5294 S3 S1 4.1275 3.2667 3
4 3.5294 3.5294 S4 S4 3.8667 3.8667 4
5 3.7647 3.4118 S7 S2 3.8000 4.6667 5
6 2.7059 2.9412 S2 S3 3.2667 2.5333 6
7 3.4118 2.7059 S6 S6 2.5333 4.2000 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance
6.5.4.2 Contractor and Engineer
Results Described
By examining contractor and engineer data collectively as shown in Table
6.30, results showed the existence of a success factors’ main effect for all
success factors in avoiding most delay factors. There was a group main
effect for lack of communication between parties (D1), change orders (D3),
and subcontractor performance (D6), and two group by factors interaction for
inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience
(D7). Detailed results can be found in Appendix E4, E5 and E6.
Table 6.30 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Contractors and
Engineers
Source D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Success Factors YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Group YES NO YES NO NO YES NO Interaction NO NO NO YES NO NO TES D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
166
An examination of the two way ANOVA results in table 6.31 shows that
certain critical success factors were seen as having a greater influence in
preventing critical delay factors.
Table 6.31 Two-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors and Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Highest
S 5 (6,7) 5 1(6) 5(6,7) 5(6,7) 1(3,4,6,7) 5(6)
S 4(6) 1(3,6) 5(6) 1(3,4,5) 7 5(6) 1(2,3,6)
S 1(3,5,6) 4(6) 7 7 4(5,6) 2(3,6) 7 S 7 2(3,5,6) 2(6) 2(3,4) 1(5,6) 7 4(6)
S 2(4,5,6) 7 4(5,6) 6 2(5,7) 4(5,6) 2(5,6,7)
S 3(4,5,7) 3(4,5,7) 3(5,6) 4(5,6,7) 3(5,7) 3(4,5,7) 3(5,6,7)
S 6(7) 6(7) 6(7) 3(5,6) 6(7) 6(7) 6(7)
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Specifically, respondents indicated that project manager’s capability and
experience (S5) is the most influential success factor to avoid delay factors,
except for change orders (D3) and subcontractor performance (D6), where
they indicated organisational planning (S1) is the most influential factor.
Similarly, both groups agreed that safety precaution and procedures (S6) is
the least influential factor for all delay factors.
Success Factors Effect
The results of each seven individual 2 x (Group) x 7 (Success factor) two-
way ANOVA tests demonstrated a significant effect for success factors
(range of results : f(6,441) = 9.890, p < 0.001 to f(6,322) = 5.909, p < 0.001).
For each of seven delay factors, respondents identified differences in the
influence of the seven critical success factors on each critical delay factor.
167
Group Main Effect
The examination of the main effect for groups reveals there are significant
differences for lack of communication (D1) and change orders (D3). The
engineers indicated the combined influence of success factors is more
influential in preventing lack of communication between parties (D1) and
change orders (D3) than did the contractors. This is shown in Table 6.32 on
the result of group main effect from contractors and engineers. Details of
group main effects on D1 and D3 are shown in Table 6.32a and 6.32b.
Table 6.32 Group Main Effect (Contractor and Engineer)
DF (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Mean ( I – J ) Sig. (p)
D1 3.8667 3.2101 0.6566 .000
D3 4.0357 3.8643 0.1714 .000
Table 6.32a Group Main Effect (Contractor and Engineer)-D1
Delay 1 (Lack of communication between parties)
Contractor n = 17 Engineer n= 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.5882 1.50245 4.0667 .82768 3.8275 4
2 3.0588 1.34493 3.7000 .87691 3.3794 1
3 2.5882 1.32565 3.3667 .92786 2.9775 7
4 3.4118 1.46026 4.3667 .99943 3.8893 2
5 3.8235 1.46779 4.7000 .59596 2.8586 3
6 2.6471 1.53872 3.1667 1.17688 2.9069 6
7 3.3529 1.32009 3.7000 .87691 3.5265 5
M 3.2101 3.8667 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
168
Table 6.32b Group Main Effect (Contractor and Engineer)-D3
Delay 3
Contractor n = 20 Engineer n= 32
Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/
2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 4.2000 1.00525 4.5625 .61892 4.3813 1
2 4.0000 1.29777 4.0938 .22762 4.0469 5
3 3.7500 1.16416 3.1563 1.32249 3.4532 7
4 3.7500 1.16416 4.0625 1.10534 3.9063 2
5 4.3500 .98809 4.3750 .79312 4.3625 4
6 3.0000 1.02598 3.5313 1.07716 3.2657 3
7 4.0000 1.21395 4.4688 .76134 4.2344 6
M 3.8643 4.0357 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Group by Success Factors (Interaction)
Table 6.33 and 6.33a show the results of group by success factor interaction.
There was a significant group by success factor interaction in the case of
inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience
(D7). An examination of the post-hoc comparison suggests that the relative
ranking of influence for each seven factors in preventing inadequate
contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience (D7) was
viewed differently by contractors and engineers.
Contractors believed organisational planning (S1) and clarity of project scope
and work definition (S4) are more influential in avoiding the delay factor
inadequate contractor planning (D4), than did engineers. Engineers believed
that the project manager’s goal commitment (S2), use of control systems
(S7) and safety precautions (S6) were more influential in avoiding delay
factors than did contractors. Contractors indicated that safety precaution (S6)
169
is the least influential factor, whilst engineers indicated that project team’s
motivation (S3) is the least influential factor in avoiding the delay factor
inadequate contractor planning (D4).
Contractors believed that the project manager’s capabilities and experience
(S5), and use of control systems (S7) are more influential in avoiding delays
caused by inadequate contractor experience (D7) than did the engineers.
Both groups believed the most influential factor in avoiding the delay caused
by inadequate contractor experience (D7) is organisational planning (S1),
and the least influential factors are safety precautions and applied
procedures (S6).
Table 6.33 Interaction in D4 (Inadequate contractor planning)
Contractor D4 Engineer D4
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 4.1256 4.2500 S5 S5 4.2813 3.4063 1
2 3.0625 4.1250 S1 S2 4.2188 4.2188 2
3 3.1250 3.6875 S4 S7 3.7657 2.8125 3
4 3.6875 3.5268 S7 S6 3.7188 2.8125 4
5 4.2500 3.1250 S3 S1 3.4063 4.2813 5
6 2.6259 3.0625 S2 S4 2.8125 3.7188 6
7 3.5268 2.6259 S6 S3 2.8125 3.7657 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors, Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
6.5.4.3 Owner and Engineer
Results Description
By examining the owner and engineer data collectively, Table 6.34 shows
that there is a success factors’ main effect for all success factors in avoiding
all delay factors. There was a group main effect for all delay factors except
for finance and payment of completed work (D5) and only one group
170
interaction, inadequate contractor planning (D4). Detailed results can be
found in Appendix E7, E8 and E9.
Table 6.33a Interaction in D7 (Inadequate contractor experience)
ContractorD7 EngineerD7
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 4.6667 4.6667 S1 S1 4.3611 4.3611 1
2 3.8000 4.6667 S5 S7 4.3611 3.6944 2
3 3.2667 4.2000 S7 S5 4.3056 4.0278 3
4 3.8867 3.8667 S4 S4 4.1387 4.1389 4
5 4.6667 3.8000 S2 S3 4.0278 4.3056 5
6 2.5333 3.2667 S3 S2 3.6244 3.5000 6
7 4.2000 2.5333 S6 S6 3.5000 4.3611 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors, Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.34 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners and Engineers
Source D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Success Factors YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Group YES YES YES YES NO YES YES Interaction NO NO NO YES NO NO NO D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
An examination of the two-way ANOVA results in Table 6.35 shows that
certain critical success factors were seen as having a greater influence in
preventing individual critical delay factors. Respondents demonstrated
different opinions about the most influential success factors to avoid delay
factors, and indicated that safety procedures (S6) was the least influential
factor on most of the delay factors.
171
Table 6.35 Two Way ANOVA Results for Owners and Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Highest
S 5 (6,7) 5(6,7) 1(6) 2(3,4) 5(6) 1(3,6) 5(6)
S 4(6) 4(6) 5(6) 7 4(6) 5(6) 1(2,6)
S 1(3,6) 1(3,6) 7 5 7 2(3,6) 7 S 7 2(3,6) 4(6) 6 1(5) 4(6) 4(6)
S 2(4,5,6) 7 2(6) 1(3) 2(5) 7 3(6)
S 3(4,5) 3(4,5) 3(6) 4(5,6,7) 3(4,5) 3(4,5,7) 2(4,5)
S 6(7) 6 6(7) 3(3,6) 6(7) 6(7) 6(7)
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planningD5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Success Factor Effect
Results of each seven individual 2(Group) x 7(Success Factor) two-way
ANOVA tests demonstrated a significant effect for success factors (range of
result: f (6,336) =2.274, p<.036 to f (6,329) =5.231, p <.001).
For each of the seven delay factors, respondents identified differences in the
influence of the seven critical success factors on each critical delay factor.
Group Main Effect
The examination of the group main effect from Table 6.36 reveals that there
are significant differences for lack of communication between parties (D1),
slow decision making (D2) change orders (D3), inadequate contractor
planning (D4), subcontractor performance (D6) and inadequate contractor
experience (D7). Engineers evaluated the combined influence of success
factors as more influential in prevention of all the delay factors except finance
and payment of completed work (D5), compared with owners. Detail of each
delay for main effect is shown in tables 6.36a, 6.36b, 6.36c, 6.36d, 6.36e and
6.36f.
172
Table 6.36 Group Main effect- Owners and Engineers
DF (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Mean ( I – J ) Sig. (p)
D1 3.8667 3.3985 0.4682 .000
D2 3.7744 3.1765 0.5979 .000
D3 4.0357 3.1816 0.8541 .000
D4 3.6473 3.3333 0.3143 .025
D6 3.5437 2.9490 0.5947 .000
D7 4.0556 3.3529 0.7027 .000 D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Table 6.36a Group Main Effect on D1 (Lack of communication)-Owner and Engineer
Delay 1
Owner n = 19 Engineer n = 30 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.6316 1.46099 4.0667 .82768 3.8492 5
2 3.3158 1.41628 3.7000 .87691 3.5079 4
3 3.3684 1.42246 3.3667 .92786 3.3676 1
4 3.4737 1.54087 4.3667 .99943 3.9202 7
5 3.6842 1.45498 4.7000 .59596 4,1921 2
6 2.9474 1.31122 3.1667 1.17688 3.0571 3
7 3.3684 1.34208 3.7000 .87691 3.5342 6
M 3.3985 3.8667 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
173
Table 6.36b Group Main Effect on D2 (Slow decision making) - Owner and Engineer
Delay 2
Owner n = 17 Engineer n = 38 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M
1 3.2353 1.34766 4.1579 .91611 3.6966 5
2 3.1765 1.23669 3.9211 1.30242 3.5488 4
3 2.8824 1.26897 3.2105 1.59658 3.0465 1
4 3.2941 1.15999 4.1579 .91611 3.7260 2
5 3.9412 1.24853 4.1579 .91611 3.7260 7
6 2.7647 1.09141 3.1316 1.43642 2.9482 3
7 2.9412 1.29762 3.6842 1.42622 3.3127 6
M 3.1765 3.7744 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.36c Group Main Effect on D3 (Change orders) - Owner and Engineer
Delay 3
Owner n =15 Engineer n= 32 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M
1 3.4000 1.35225 4.5625 .61892 3.9813 1
2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0938 1.22762 3.5136 5
3 3.1333 1.30201 3.1563 1.32249 3.1448 7
4 3.4000 1.35225 4.0625 1.10534 3.7313 4
5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3750 .79312 3.9209 2
6 2.7333 1.22280 3.5313 1.07716 3.1323 3
7 3.2000 1.32017 4.4688 .76134 3.8344 6
M 3.1810 4.0357 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
174
Table 6.36d Group Main Effect on D4 (Inadequate contractor planning) - Owner and
Engineer
Delay 4 (Inadequate contractor planning)
Owner n = 18 Engineer n= 32 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M
1 3.6111 1.46082 3.4063 1.34066 3.5087 2
2 3.2222 1.47750 4.2188 .87009 3.7205 7
3 3.2778 1.44733 2.8125 1.22967 3.0452 5
4 3.5000 1.46528 2.8125 1.22967 3.1563 6
5 3.0000 1.49509 4.2813 .99139 3.6407 1
6 3.0000 1.49509 4.2813 1.05446 3.6407 4
7 3.7222 1.27443 3.7188 1.08462 3.7205 3
M 3.3333 3.6473 Where SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.36e Group Main Effect on D6 (Subcontractor) - Owner and Engineer
Delay 6 (Subcontractor)
Owner n = 14 Engineer n= 36 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.35873 4.1667 1.10841 3.5834 1
2 3.0714 1.32806 3.8056 1.19090 3.4385 5
3 2.9286 1.26881 2.7778 1.33333 2.8532 2
4 3.2143 1.42389 3.5556 1.25230 3.3850 4
5 3.0714 1.32806 4.0278 1.15847 3.5496 7
6 2.7143 1.38278 2.7778 1.35459 2.7461 3
7 2.6429 1.27745 3.6944 1.26083 3.1687 6
M 2.9490 3.5437 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
175
Table 6.36f Group Main Effect on D7 (Inadequate contractor experience) - Owner and
Engineer
Delay 7 (Inadequate contractor experience)
Owner n = 17 Engineer n= 36 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.5882 1.27764 4.3611 .86694 3.9747 5
2 2.9412 1.51948 3.6944 1.06421 3.3178 1
3 3.5294 1.32842 4.0278 1.08196 3.7786 7
4 3.5294 1.46277 4.1389 1.09942 3.8342 4
5 3.7647 1.25147 4.3056 .92023 4.0352 3
6 2.7059 1.35852 3.5000 1.10841 3.1030 2
7 3.4118 1.32565 4.3611 .89929 3.8865 6
M 3.3529 4.0556 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Group by Success Factors (Interaction)
There was a significant Group by Success Factor interaction - as shown in
Table 6.39 - in the case of inadequate contractor planning (D4). Engineers
indicated organisational planning (S1) is more influential in avoiding delay
factors caused by inadequate contractor planning (D4), whilst owners
evaluated use of control systems (S7) as the most influential factor.
Engineers indicated that project team’s motivation and goal orientation (S3)
is the least influential factor compared to the owner’s preference for safety
precautions and applied procedures (S6) when avoiding the delay factor due
to inadequate contractor planning (D4).
176
Table 6.37 Interaction in D4 (Inadequate contractor planning)
Owner D4 Engineer D4
SF Mean Sorting Ranking Ranking Sorting Mean SF
1 3.6111 3.7222 S7 S1 4.2813 3.4063 1
2 3.2222 3.6111 S1 S6 4.2813 4.2188 2
3 3.2778 3.5000 S4 S2 4.2188 2.8125 3
4 3.5000 3.2778 S3 S7 3.7188 2.8125 4
5 3.0000 3.2222 S2 S5 3.4063 4.2813 5
6 3.0000 3.0000 S5 S4 2.8125 4.2813 6
7 3.7222 3.0000 S6 S3 2.8125 3.7188 7
Data reading direction Data reading direction SF : Success Factors, Sort : Descending from greatest to least Ranking: Exact hierarchy of importance S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
6.5.4.4 Owner, Contractor and Engineer
By examining these three groups as a combined group it is possible to
investigate how they collectively evaluate the seven critical success factors’
relative influence on each separate delay factor. The results of this
investigation are shown in Table 6.38. Detailed results can be found in
Appendix E10, E11 and E12.
Table 6.38 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Summary for Owners, Contractors and
Engineers
Source D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Success Factors YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Group YES YES YES NO NO YES YES Interaction NO NO NO YES NO NO YES
Results Description
An examination of the Two-way ANOVA Table 6.39 for the combined group
(owners, contractors and engineers), shows that project manager capability
(S5) was rated the most influential success factor on all delay factors with the
177
exception of subcontractor performance (D6). The combined group rated
organisational planning (S1) as most influential in avoiding delay caused by
subcontractors (D6).
The group is in agreement in rating safety precaution and procedure (S6) as
the least influential factor to avoid most of the delay factors, except for
inadequate contractor planning (D4), where the group indicated project
team’s motivation and goal orientation (S3) is the least influential factor.
There are different opinions on the ranking of the rest of the success factors’
impact on delay factors.
Table 6.39 Two Way ANOVA Results (Owners, Contractors and Engineers)
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5(6,7) 5(6,7) 5(6) 5 5(6) 1(3,6,7) 5(6)
S 1(3,6) 4(6) 1(6) 7 4(5,6) 5(6) 1(2,3,6)
S 4(6) 1(3,6,7) 7 1(3,4) 7 2(3,6) 7
S 7 2(3,5,6) 4(5,6) 2(3,4) 1(5,6) 4(6) 4(6)
S 2(4,5) 7 2(6) 4(5,7) 2(5) 7 3(5,6)
S 3(4,5) 3(4,5) 3(5,6) 6(7) 3(4,5,7) 3(4,5,7) 2
S 6(7) 6(7) 6(7) 3(5,6,7) 6(7) 6(7) 6(7)
S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Success Factors Effect
Result for each of the seven individual 3 (Group) x 7 (Success Factor) two-
way analysis of variance ANOVA tests demonstrated a significant main effect
for success factors. Results of each seven individual 2(Group) x 7(Success
Factor) two-way ANOVA tests demonstrated a significant effect for success
factors (range of result f (6, 553) =9.533, p < .001 to f (6, 441) = 3.241, p<
.005).
178
Group Main Effect
Examination of the group main effect in Table 6.40 shows that five of the
analyses demonstrated significant effects. Details for each delay factor of
the group main effect is shown in table 6.40a, 6.40b, 6.40c, 6.40d, and 6.40e.
These are:
Lack of communication between parties (D1): (F (2, 44) = 1.2787, p
<0.001). Compared with the contractors, engineers found the
combined influence of success factors to be more influential in
preventing lack of communication between parties (D1).
Slow decision making (D2): (F (2, 533) = 1.448). Engineers believed
that the combined influence of success factors is more influential in
preventing the D2 critical delay factor.
Change orders (D3): (F (2, 364) = 12.689, p < 0.001). Compared with
owners, engineers believed that the combined influences of success
factors are more influential.
Subcontractor performance (D6): (F (2, 462) = 18.712, p < 0.001).
Compared with owners, contractors demonstrated a strong belief that
the combined influence of success factors is more influential.
Inadequate contractor experience (D7): (F (2, 433) = 36.270, p <
0.001). Compared with owners, engineers found the combined
influence of success factors to be more influential in preventing
inadequate contractor experience (D7).
Table 6.40 Group Main Effect (Owner, Contractor & Engineer)
DF (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Mean ( I – J ) Sig. (p)
D1 Engineer Contractor 3.8667 -3.2101 = 0.6566 .000
D2 Engineer Owner 3.7744 – 3.1765 = 0.5979 .000
D3 Engineer Owner 4.0357 – 3.1810 = 0.8547 .000
D6 Contractor Owner 3.9098 – 2.9490 = 1.049 .000
D7 Engineer Owner 4.0556 – 3.3529 = 0.7027 .000 D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
179
Table 6.40a Group Main Effect on D1(Lack of communication)
Delay 1
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30
Marginal mean
owner + contractor
)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.6316 1.46099 3.5882 1.50245 4.0667 .82768 3.7622 5
2 3.3158 1.41628 3.0588 1.34493 3.7000 .87691 3.3582 1
3 3.3684 1.42246 2.5882 1.32565 3.3667 .92786 3.1078 4
4 3.4737 1.54087 3.4118 1.46026 4.3667 .99943 3.7507 7
5 3.6842 1.45498 3.8235 1.46779 4.7000 .59596 4.0692 2
6 2.9474 1.31122 2.6471 1.53872 3.1667 1.17688 2.9204 3
7 3.3684 1.34208 3.3529 1.32009 3.7000 .87691 3.4738 6
M 3.3985 3.2101 3.8667 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation, Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw , (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.40b Group Main Effect on D2 (Slow decision making)
Delay 2
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 27 Engineer n =38
Marginal mean
owner + contractor
)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M
1 3.2353 1.34766 3.9259 1.41220 4.1579 .91611 3.7730 5
2 3.1765 1.23669 3.4815 1.18874 3.9211 1.30242 3.5264 4
3 2.8824 1.26897 3.2222 .93370 3.2105 1.59658 3.1050 1
4 3.2941 1.15999 3.8519 1.37851 4.1579 .91611 3.9531 2
5 3.9412 1.24853 4.4074 .88835 4.1579 .91611 4.1688 7
6 2.7647 1.09141 2.7778 .80064 3.1316 1.43642 2.8914 3
7 2.9412 1.29762 3.6296 1.07946 3.6842 1.42622 3.4183 6
M 3.1765 3.6138 3.7744 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation, Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw , (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
180
Table 6.40c Group Main Effect on D3 (Change orders)
Delay 3
Owner n =15 Contractor n= 20 Engineer n =32
Marginal mean
owner + contractor
)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.4000 1.35225 4.2000 1.00525 4.5625 .61892 4.0542 5
2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0000 1.29777 4.0938 1.22762 3.6757 1
3 3.1333 1.30201 3.7500 1.16416 3.1563 1.32249 3.3465 7
4 3.4000 1.35225 3.7500 1.16416 4.0625 1.10534 3.7375 4
5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3500 .98809 4.3750 .79312 4.0639 2
6 2.7333 1.22280 3.0000 1.02598 3.5313 1.07716 3.0882 3
7 3.2000 1.32017 4.0000 1.21395 4.4688 .76134 3.8896 6
M 3.1810 3.8643 4.0357 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation, Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw, (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.40d Group Main Effect on D6 (Subcontractors)
Delay 6
Owner n = 14 Contractor n= Engineer n =36
Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/
3
Sorting Highes
t to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.35873 4.4211 1.01739 4.1667 1.10841 3.8626 1
2 3.0714 1.32806 4.1579 .89834 3.8056 1.19090 3.6783 5
3 2.9286 1.26881 3.2632 .87191 2.7778 1.33333 2.9899 2
4 3.2143 1.42389 4.1579 .89834 3.5556 1.25230 3.6426 4
5 3.0714 1.32806 4.3684 .76089 4.0278 1.15847 3.8225 7
6 2.7143 1.38278 3.0000 1.05409 2.7778 1.35459 2.8307 3
7 2.6429 1.27745 4.0000 .88192 3.6944 1.26083 3.4458 6
M 2.9490 3.9098 3.5437 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation, Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw, (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
181
Table 6.40e Group Main Effect on D7 (Inadequate contractor experience)
Delay 7
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 15 Engineer n = 36
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.5882 1.27764 4.6667 .61721 4.3611 .86694 4.2053 5
2 2.9412 1.51948 3.8000 1.37321 3.6944 1.06421 3.4785 1
3 3.5294 1.32842 3.2667 1.38701 4.0278 1.08196 3.6080 7
4 3.5294 1.46277 3.8667 1.35576 4.1389 1.09942 3.7784 4
5 3.7647 1.25147 4.6667 .89974 4.3056 .92023 4.2457 3
6 2.7059 1.35852 2.5333 .99043 3.5000 1.10841 2.9131 2
7 3.4118 1.32565 4.2000 .94112 4.3611 .89929 3.9910 6
M 3.3529 3.8571 4.0556 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation, Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw, (SF’s effect) or column (group effect) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Interaction (Owners, Contractors and Engineers)
There are interaction results for the delay factors inadequate contractor
planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience (D7). Tables 6.41 and
6.41a show the analysis of these results. In the case of inadequate contractor
planning (D4) there was a significant group by success factor interaction (F
(12, 44) = 4.909, p < 0.001). An examination of post-hoc comparisons
suggests that the relative ranking of influence of owners, contractors and
engineers differs. Contractors and engineers believed project manager goal
commitment (S2) to be of a higher influence than did owners. Compared with
engineers, owners and contractors evaluated safety precaution and
procedure as the least influential factor.
Inadequate contractor experience (D7) showed a significant group by
success factor interaction (D7) F (2, 433) = 1.9888, p < 0.25). Compared with
engineers, owners and contractors held a stronger belief that project
182
manager goal commitment (S2) is more influential on the critical delay. The
three groups believed the subcontractor problem (S6) to be the least
influential factor to the critical delay factor inadequate contractor experience
(D7).
Table 6.41 Interaction (Owners, Contractors and Engineers)-D4 (Inadequate contractor
planning)
Owners D4 Contractors D4 Engineers D4
SF Mean Sort Rnk SF Mean Sort Rnk SF Mean Sort Rnk
1 3.6111 3.7222 S7 1 4.1256 4.2500 S5 1 3.4063 4.2813 S5
2 3.2222 3.6111 S1 2 3.0625 4.1250 S1 2 4.2188 4.2016 S6
3 3.2778 3.5000 S5 3 3.1250 3.8125 S7 3 2.8125 4.2188 S2
4 3.5000 3.2777 S3 4 3.6875 3.6875 S4 4 2.8125 3.7188 S7
5 3.0000 3.2222 S2 5 4.2500 3.1250 S3 5 4.2813 3.4063 S1
6 3.0000 3.0000 S5 6 2.6250 3.0625 S2 6 4.2813 2.8125 S4
7 3.7222 3.0000 S6 7 3.8125 2.6250 S6 7 3.7188 2.8125 S3 S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
Table 6.41a Interaction (Owners, Contractors and Engineers)-D7 (Inadequate
contractor experience)
Owners D7 Contractors D7 Engineers D7
SF Mean Sort Rnk SF Mean Sort Rnk SF Mean Sort Rnk
1 3.5882 3.7647 S5 1 4.6667 4.6667 S5 1 4.3611 4.3611 S1
2 2.9412 3.5882 S1 2 3.8000 4.6667 S1 2 3.6944 4.3611 S7
3 3.5294 3.5294 S3 3 3.2667 4.2000 S7 3 4.0278 4.3056 S5
4 3.5294 3.5294 S4 4 3.8667 3.8667 S4 4 4.1389 4.1309 S4
5 3.7647 3.4118 S7 5 4.6667 3.8000 S2 5 4.3056 4.0278 S3
6 2.7059 2.9412 S2 6 2.5333 3.2667 S3 6 3.5000 3.6944 S2
7 3.4118 2.7059 S6 7 4.2000 2.5330 S6 7 4.3611 3.5000 S6 S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
183
6.5.4.5. Conclusion
Two way ANOVA results showed there are similarities and differences
between the influence of critical success factors on critical delay factors.
Owners and contractors demonstrated differences in the influence of critical
success factors and critical delay factors, except for lack of communication
between parties (D1). The group also believed the combined group of
success factors (group main effect) has more influence on individual delay
factors, except for lack of communication between parties (D1) and
inadequate contractor planning (D4). The group showed significant
differences in the ranking of success factors (interaction) for slow decision
making (D2), inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor
experience (D7). However the group agreed that the project manager’s
capabilities and experience (S5) and organisational planning (S1) are the
most important success factors, whilst safety precautions and applied
procedures (S6) are the least important.
Contractors and engineers strongly agreed that there are differences in the
influence of critical success factors and critical delay factors. The group
indicated the combined success factors (group main effect) has more
influence on individual delay factors, except for slow decision making (D2),
inadequate contractor planning (D4), finance and payment of completed work
(D5) and inadequate contractor experience (D7). The group showed
significant differences in the ranking of success factors (interaction) for
inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience
(D7). The group agreed that the project manager’s capabilities and
experience (S5) is the most important success factor and safety precaution
and applied procedure (S6) the least important.
Owners and engineers showed strong agreement on differences in the
influence of critical success factors and critical delay factors. The group also
strongly agreed that the combined success factors (group main effect) helps
to avoid the critical delay factors except for finance and payment of
completed work (D5). The group showed one significant ranking (interaction)
184
on delay factors caused by inadequate contractor planning (D4) and
inadequate contractor experience (D7).
The owners, engineers and contractors strongly agreed on the differences in
the influence of critical success factors and critical delay factors. The group
agreed that the combined group of success factors (main effect) has more
influence on delay factors except for inadequate contractor planning (D4) and
finance and payment of completed work (D5). The group showed significant
ranking (interaction) on critical success factors for delay caused by
inadequate contractor planning (D4) and inadequate contractor experience
(D7). However the group agreed the most influential success factor for delay
factor is the project manager’s capabilities and experience (S5), and the least
influential is safety precautions and applied procedure (S6).
To conclude, the results show that survey respondents (owners, contractors,
and engineers) were in agreement regarding which critical success factors
were most influential in avoiding or preventing critical delay factors. The
results indicate strong agreement on the differences in the influence of critical
success factors and critical delay factors (success factors). The group also
agreed that the combined group of success factors (main effect) has more
influence on the delay factors. The group has shown some differences in the
ranking of the success factors on the delay factors, but the group consistently
ranked the most influential success factor to avoid the delay factors is project
manager capabilities and experience (S5), and the least influential is safety
precautions and applied procedures (S6).
6.5.5 Overall Ranking
The respondents (owners, contractors, and engineers) were tested on the
importance of the success factors on avoiding delay factors individually and
collectively. This study resulted in the overall ranking of critical success
factors for construction processes, which motivated the current study to fill
the gap in the research literature. The method for evaluating the relative
importance of the success factors across all the delay factors for each group
was developed, as follows:
185
Success factor importance = ∑ (f) x (r)
Where r = rank from 1 to 7 and f = frequency that a specific rank was
assigned to a success factor across the 7 delay factors.
The first step was to rank the means for the seven success factors for each
delay factor. The success factor with the lowest mean (rating of influence on
the delay factor) would be assigned the rank of 1; the success factor that had
the highest mean (rating of influence on the delay factor) would be assigned
the rank of 7. Next, the importance index was computed as the sum of the
products of the frequency (across the 7 delay factors); each success factor
received a given rank times the numeric value of the rank. Since there are 7
delay factors, the frequencies must sum to 7.
Table 6.42 shows the result of a one-way ANOVA for owners. Success factor
one received a rank of 6 for four delay factors, a rank of 5 for two delay
factors and a rank of 4 for one delay factor. The total is the total product of
the rank and the frequency (detailed results of success factor importance can
be found in Appendix F).
Table 6.42 One Way ANOVA - summary result for Owners
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SFSF
Importance Sorting
S 5 5 5 7 5 4 5 S1 42 S7
S 1 4 1 1 4 5 1 S2 45 S2
S 4 1 4 4 1 2 4 S3 40 S1
S 7 2 7 3 2 1 3 S4 37 S6
S 3 7 3 2 7 3 7 S5 40 S3
S 2 3 2 5 3 6 2 S6 42 S5
S 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 S7 48 S4 S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
186
Table 6.43 Success factor one in owner case
Total
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Freq 1 2 4
Product 4 10 24 38
Groups Overall Perceived Success Factors Importance
The overall importance for each tested group and the study’s overall success
factors are listed in table 6.44 below. Detailed results can be found in
Appendix F1 to F9. The highest ranking of the study’s success factors for all
the delay factors is the project manager’s capability and experience (S5),
followed by organisational planning (S1), clarity of project scope and
definition (S4), use of control systems (S7), project manager’s goal
commitment (S2), project team motivation and goal orientation (S3) and
safety precautions and applied procedures (S6).
Table 6.44 Group Overall Perceived Success Factors Importance
O C E O + C O + E C + E O + C + E SF SF
Importance Sorting
S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 S1 41 S5
S 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 S2 22 S1
S 1 4 7 4 4 7 4 S3 14 S4
S 2 3 4 7 7 4 7 S4 33 S7
S 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 S5 49 S2
S 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 S6 7 S3
S 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 S7 30 S6 Where O : Owners, C: Contractors, E: Engineers ( One way ANOVA) O+ C: Owners and Contractors – combined (two way ANOVA) O + E : Owners and Engineers – combined (two way ANOVA) C + E : Contractors and Engineers –combined ( two way ANOVA) O + C + E : Owner, Contractor and Engineer (two way ANOVA) S1: Organisational planning S2: Project manager’s goal commitment S3: Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4: Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5: Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6: Safety precautions and applied procedures S7: Use of Control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractor performance D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
187
The priority list of success factors resulting from this study is not the same as
the priorities noted in the literature. Project manager’s capability and
experience (S5) was ranked 5th in the literature and organisational planning
(S1) was the most important factor. Clarity of project scope and definition
(S3) was ranked 4th in the literature. Use of control systems (S7) which is the
least important success factor in the literature, was ranked 4th in this study.
There are a number of possible explanations for this outcome. This study
addressed only the seven success factors, which may have affected their
priority. Secondly, the target project was public, and was evaluated by
different project participants, compared with the study by Ashley et al (1987)
where data was obtained from eight companies, each contributing one
average and one outstanding project, totalling 16 projects, 82% of which
were private.
Another reason for this outcome could be that the ranking of the success
factors in this study were done for projects during their construction, whilst
Ashley’s study included projects in different stages of their lifecycle. This
study was also restricted to the Brunei building construction industry, with its
different environmental, political and cultural issues. Finally the immature
nature of Brunei’s construction industry and the capabilities of personnel in
developing countries may also account for these differences in outcomes.
188
CHAPTER 7
A DELPHI METHODOLOGY: STAGE 3 - RANKING THE
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
This thesis examines how the building construction industry in the developing
country of Brunei can employ critical success factors to avoid delay factors
by identifying and ranking the most significant components of critical success
factors, and applying these to avoid the delay factors identified from the
survey of Brunei building construction projects.
Further to the investigation of methodologies in chapter 4, this chapter
reassesses the consensus-forming Delphi method. While the previous
chapter reviewed the critical success factors for construction processes, this
chapter utilises the Delphi method to rank the critical success factors for the
delay factors in building construction in Brunei.
The Delphi method was selected as it provides the researcher with a flexible
and adaptable tool to gather and analyse data. This chapter describes the
Delphi method using an expert panel to rank the most important critical
success factors for Brunei building construction processes. The critical
success factors and critical delay factors identified in chapters 5 and chapter
6 are shown in Table (7.1).
Table (7.1) Success factors and Delay factors
Delay Factors Success Factors
Lack of communication between parties Project manager’s capability and experience
Slow decision making Organisational planning
Change orders Clarity of project scope and definition
Inadequate contractor planning Use of control systems
Finance and payment of completed work Project manager’s goal commitment
Subcontractor performance Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Inadequate contractor experience Safety precautions and applied procedures
189
7.1 THE DELPHI METHODOLOGY: Ranking the critical success
factors for Brunei building construction projects
The Delphi questionnaire was initially discussed and piloted with experienced
project managers and a number of qualified engineers. The piloting was done
to test whether the questionnaire was intelligible, unambiguous and easy for
the selected panel to understand and respond to.
A panel of experts was identified to perform the Delphi method. The personal
characteristics and professional experience of the panels and the relationship
between the panels’ background, topic to be investigated, the concepts
identified, and the site of the study are important considerations, particularly
for the Delphi questionnaire. The expert panel are representatives of
government, business, educators, private construction firms, and local
organizations. This was done to assure validity of the results from reasonable
distribution of expert opinion and expert judgement on the industry.
The experts considered for this research are from several professions such
as:
Owner organisations
Contracting organisations
Consultants
Engineers or designers
All potential expert group members were contacted personally to determine
their willingness to participate in the research, and to gauge whether they
met the following criteria for selection. The experts met the criteria as follows:
Over ten years of contract management experience in building
construction
Had acted in the role of owners’, contractors’ and engineers’
representative
Willing to participate in the entire process
Willing to share ideas.
190
Initially, the two-round Delphi survey was conducted targeting a group of 28
experts, who were selected to represent different viewpoints in the range
between the experts and authorities responsible for strategic decision-making
in building construction in Brunei. Before the respondents answered the
Delphi questionnaire, they were presented with a letter of instruction
(Appendix A1). This letter contained a description of the main objective of the
research, the methodology used and the research question to be answered.
The Delphi survey was prepared using two rounds of questionnaires. In the
questionnaire for the first round, the respondents were asked to consider
seven critical success factors to avoid delay factors in Brunei building
construction. An explanatory note was appended with each critical factor to
give a quick definition and reason for the critical success factor selections.
Based on their experience, respondents were asked to rank these success
factors in terms of urgency and importance of impact on the process of
avoiding delay factors. Participants were permitted to add any additional
factor to the list they felt should be included. The questionnaires were initially
in English. Definitions were attached and any ambiguities about the ranking
were explained personally or by other available communication such as
emails and telephone.
In response to the importance of the success factors, respondents were
asked to think of the local capabilities, potential, and the associated barriers
and deficits. Respondents were then asked to answer:
What are the most needed success factors for avoiding delay
factors in the Brunei Building Construction Industry?
The respondents were asked to rank each success factors based on a
numerical order from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating most important or most needed
strategy and 7 indicating the least needed or less critical strategy, according
to its importance in the short to medium future for better building
191
construction. Additional information was considered to identify each
respondent with respect to position or title, place of work, years of experience
and work achievement.
For round one, the questionnaire was sent via email to the correspondents’
addresses at the same time on the same day. The questionnaire was also
designed to allow additional suggestions. These additional suggestions (if
any) were not to be scored until round two. When the respondents returned
the questionnaire from the first round, the results were analysed, tabulated
and returned to the respondents for their further consideration, along with the
questionnaire of the second round (Appendix I).
Twenty experts responded to the first round. Respondents were experts from
owner’s, contractor’s and engineer’s representatives:
Ministry Of Development
University of Brunei
Consulting firms (local and international experience)
Construction and contracting firms (local and international experience)
Public Works Department.
After completing the first round with a reasonable number of participants
having responded, the group received the questionnaire adjusted for round
two. In the second round questionnaire, each participant was asked to review
his/her original responses about the ranking of the critical success factors,
and to compare them with those of the entire group, before making their final
decision.
The purpose of the second round was to create a consensus among experts
and confirm the key issues identified in the first round. In addition, the second
round increased the opportunity to get a deeper perspective on the
evaluation process. The group members were asked if they wished to
change or confirm their responses in view of the new information. After the
respondents had completed these questionnaires, the material was collected
192
and processed. Some panel members did make changes in their ranking
from the first round questionnaire.
After processing the responses from round two, it was determined that
additional rounds of questioning would not produce significant changes of
opinion and therefore additional questionnaires were deemed unnecessary.
Sufficient time required to collect information and reach a consensus in many
cases is up to three iterations (Worthen & Sandlers, 1987: Brooks, 1979).
Theoretically the process can be continuously iterated until consensus is
achieved at the desired level. As the average and median ranking generally
remained the same, we can assume that a reasonable level of consensus
has been reached; therefore it was decided that a two-round Delphi process
was satisfactory on this occasion.
Ultimately, only 15 experts were used. The elimination of experts was based
on two criteria. Firstly, a number of experts did not respond to the second
round of the survey. Secondly, respondents consistently ranked success
factors equally, indicating the results were stable. The 15 experts used were
as follows:
Ministry of Development (5)
University of Brunei (2)
Consulting firms (3)
Construction and contracting firms (2)
Public Works Department (3)
7.2 TABULATION OF THE FIRST ROUND RESPONSES
The first round responses of the Delphi survey were tabulated and analysed
using a distribution ranking table to annotate the average ranking, median
ranking and the order of importance of each strategy, as indicated in Table
7.2. Experts were denoted by alphabetical letters.
193
Table7.2 Delphi First round
Ranking by participants
Avg
Mea
n
Med
ian
rnk
Impt
ord
er
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
S1 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 5 1 2 3 2 2.4 2 3 S2 5 4 5 5 5 4 6 5 2 5 2 3 5 5 5 4.4 5 5 S3 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 5.6 6 6 S4 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 2 3 2.4 2 2 S5 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 2.0 1 1 S6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7.0 7 7 S7 4 2 4 4 4 5 3 6 5 3 6 5 4 4 4 4.2 4 4 S1 –Organisational Planning S2 – Project Manager’s Goal Commitment S3 – Project Team’s motivation and Goal Orientation S4 – Clarity of Project Scope and Work Definition S5 – Project Manager’s Capabilities and Experience S6 – Safety Precautions and Applied Procedures S7 - Use of Control System
7.3 TABULATION AND RANKING OF RESPONSES FROM ROUND
TWO
The responses from the strategy ranking of importance from two rounds of
the Delphi surveys were tabulated, averaged and used to validate each
strategy ranking of importance. The final ranking for the most needed
success factors for the building construction industry are represented in
Table 7.3.
194
Table7.3 Delphi Second Round
Ranking to participants
Avg
Mea
n
Med
ian
rnk
Impt
ord
er
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
S1 2 4 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 5 1 3 3 3 2.5 3 3
S2 5 3 5 4 5 5 6 5 3 5 2 3 6 5 5 4.5 5 5
S3 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 3 6 5 6 6 5.7 6 6
S4 3 1 2 1 3 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2.2 2 2
S5 1 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 2.1 1 1
S6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7.0 7 7
S7 4 2 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 3 6 5 4 4 4 4.1 4 4
S1 – Organisational Planning S2 – Project Manager’s Goal Commitment S3 – Project Team’s motivation and Goal Orientation S4 – Clarity of Project Scope and Work Definition S5 – Project Manager’s Capabilities and Experience S6 – Safety Precautions and Applied Procedures S7 - Use of Control System
7.4 CONCLUSION
The ranking from the expert panel identified that the most important critical
success factors for Brunei’s building construction are:
1. Project Manager Capabilities
2. Clarity of project scope
3. Planning effort
4. Use of control system
5. Project manager’s goal commitment.
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation
7. Safety precaution and applied procedures
After reviewing the literature on the success factors in the previous sections,
several success criteria relevant to the above critical success factors for
construction processes are identified and listed as follows. Future research is
suggested to investigate in detail the relevance of these criteria.
195
1. Project Manager Capabilities
The Project Manager is the key person on the project. Their skills need to be
multi-dimensional, which includes interpersonal, technical and administrative.
The 10 most important skills and competencies of a Project Manager are:
People skills
Leadership
Listening
Integrity, ethical behaviour
Strong at building trust
Verbal communication
Strong at building teams
Conflict resolution, conflict management
Critical thinking, problem solving
Understanding; balances priorities
The most important element is that the project manager must clearly
understand the role of a project leader. They should understand the extent
that they need to be involved, how to define their authority and the amount of
control they should exercise over personnel. The project manager must have
an impressive personality so that team players, associates and peers look up
to them and respond to their requests. The project manager should have
leadership skills and be competent and managerially skilful. The project
manager should have the ability to persuade other group members to their
view. They should also be able to resolve conflict between the parties.
Project managers should be responsible for organising, selecting and
defining the responsibilities of the project team. The project manager should
identify interfaces between the activities of the functional departments,
subcontractors, and other project contributors. They are also responsible for
monitoring progress, identifying problems, communicating the status of
interfaces to contributors, and initiating and co-ordinating corrective action.
The project manager should motivate the project team to perform their duties,
and also convince the project team to co-operate with each other. The project
196
manager in a construction environment must posses good technical
knowledge and experience, since most projects are highly technical.
2. Clarity of Project Scope
This critical success factor requires that the end-result of the project is stated
clearly, with full consultation with the related parties. Although each party
might have different specific goals in mind for the project, they must spell out
their goals. It is crucial for participants to state the communicated and defined
goal to all parties, and to clarify time and cost objectives. It is important to
present a clear design brief with minimal subsequent changes. A brief must
be exact and owned by the client at the highest (strategic) level within the
client and project organisations.
3. Planning Effort
The plan, or schedule, should be prepared as early as possible. The plan
should be updated, with as much detail as possible, including during the
design process and throughout its phases. The detail required includes
individual action for project implementation, the responsible party for each
action (if known), and the technical standard required. The plan should be
realistic, and clearly state the appropriate workload for the project team. The
plan must be updated regularly in order to keep pace with the project’s
development. The team should be prepared to re-plan the job schedule to
accommodate frequent changes on dynamic projects. The team should
incorporate detailed planning guidelines for termination.
4. Use of Control systems
Schedule control requires that the project manager and superintendents
jointly agree on intermediate milestones and build the detailed schedule
around these. Successful project teams celebrate these milestones with
parties, aiming at breaking the monotony of a long schedule into easily
managed portions. Costs’ control – focus on tracking the money spent – is
essential, and requires detailed actual costs. One of the best monitoring aids
is a plot of plan versus actual costs on a cash-flow curve, e.g. earned – value
analysis system. Quality control, which focuses on ensuring the project
197
reaches the agreed and designed level of quality, means the project must be
closely scrutinised during its entire process. The methods for performing
control include regular meetings and day-to- day reports etc.
5. Project Manager’s goal commitment
The role of project manager includes responsibilities such as planning,
scheduling, coordinating and working with people and project teams to
achieve project goals. A project manager’s goal commitment focuses on long
term goals and big picture objectives, while inspiring people to reach those
goals. A manager deals with the day to day details of meeting specific goals.
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation
All participants must understand and be dedicated and strongly committed to
achieving, maintaining and fulfilling project goals. All participants must be
committed to the concept of project planning and control and must be able to
put the concept into practice. They must understand the project management
process, its purpose and values, and be committed to following the steps and
necessary procedures Participants should possess adequate capability,
including skill and experience. It is essential that appropriate interpersonal
skills are encouraged, and that a good working relationship between client,
project team members and stakeholders is maintained.
7. Safety Precaution and applied procedures
This criterion ensures there is the consideration and application of legislative
health and safety measures.
198
CHAPTER 8
RESEARCH CONCLUSION
The objective of this research is to identify the critical success factors and
critical delay factors which impact on the construction processes in Brunei’s
building construction projects. This has been pursued through the
examination of the relationships between the critical success factors
identified in the literature, and the delay factors identified in the construction
process. Seven critical success factors and delay factors were chosen for
further analysis, to determine which of the critical success factors had the
most influence in avoiding the critical delay factors, thereby addressing a gap
in current research, and providing construction managers with information
that could lead to more successful project delivery. Finally, seven of the most
influential critical success factors were ranked by a panel of experts. These
were identified as the most necessary critical success factors to take into
account when considering how to improve project performance in Brunei’s
construction industry.
8.1 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTIONS
8.1.1. Critical Delay factors In Brunei Building Construction
Projects
The research investigated the causes of delays in construction processes
confronting Brunei’s building construction projects. A Relative Importance
Index was used to determine the relative importance of various causes of
delay. A Spearman’s Rank correlation test showed positive agreement
between the respondents’ views about the causes of delays in Brunei’s
building construction projects. Based on the overall relative importance index
of the respondents (owner, contractor and engineer), the seven most
important causes of delay which contribute to the failure of building
construction projects are:
199
1. Lack of communication between parties
2. Slow decision making
3. Change orders
4. Inadequate contractor planning
5. Finance and payment of completed work
6. Subcontractor performance
7. Inadequate contractor experience.
8.1.2 Relationship between Critical Success and Delay Factors
(Pearson Correlation)
The critical success factors identified from the literature and delay factors
evaluated by owners, contractors and engineers were examined using
Pearson’s correlation coefficient to measure the strength and direction of the
relationship between these factors for projects generally. The measure
showed that the owners’ responses demonstrated a significant correlation
between all seven critical success and critical delay factors. The results of
the Pearson correlation are as follows:
Owners show strong correlations between the critical delay factors
and the critical success factors.
Contractors show strong correlation between the critical delay factors
except for delays cause by subcontractors (D6).
Engineers’ responses showed a very strong correlation between all
the critical success factors and the critical delay factors.
The findings demonstrate a strong relationship between the critical success
factors and delay factors identified in the research. It can be concluded that
there is a strong correlation between success factors and delay factors for
owners, contractors and engineers. The strong correlations show that
owners, engineers and contractors believe that there should be relationships
between the critical success factors and delay factors, and their results
reflect that. The results further show that owners and engineers strongly
agree that there is a significant correlation between all the critical success
factors and all the delay factors. Contractors disagree that any of the critical
200
factors will help to reduce delay factors caused by subcontractors (D6) and
inadequate contractor experience (D7).
8.1.3 Perceptions and influence of success factors on each
delay factor (t-tests for Owners, Contractors and
Engineers’ Responses)
T-tests were undertaken to compare the perceptions of critical success
factors and critical delay factors of three groups - owners and contractors;
owners and engineers; and contractors and engineers - by comparing their
means and the influence of success factors on each delay factor. The t-test
result primarily shows agreement - with some differences - in how owners,
contractors and engineers evaluated the relations between the critical
success factors, critical delay factors and the influence of critical success
factors on avoiding each critical delay factor.
The results of the tests showed strong agreement between owners,
contractors and engineers on their evaluation of the perceptions of critical
success factors and delay factors. However some differences were seen in
their evaluations of project manager’s goal commitment (S2), clarity of project
scopes (S4) and safety precaution (S6), explained by the fact that contractors
and owners need a project manager who has full responsibility for the project
to have clarity of project scope, effective communication, safety precautions
and commitment to the project’s goals, when implementing the project.
Differences were obvious in perceptions about delay factors inadequate
contractor planning (D4), inadequate contractor experience and lack of
communication (D1). This could be because contractors and engineers are
blaming the contract award process, where most of the projects are given to
the lowest bidder.
Results showed that contractors and engineers agreed with each other more
than any other group. Their agreement may be explained by the level of
involvement in the project, with both parties more involved than owners.
201
8.1.4 Ranking of Critical Success Factors Influence on Critical
Delay Factors (One and Two way ANOVA)
One Way ANOVA - Individual
Investigations of the influence of critical success factors on avoiding or
preventing delay factors suggested that the test groups (owners, contractors,
and engineers) would not be in agreement about which critical success
factors were most influential in avoiding or preventing critical delay factors.
This proved to be true when the results were examined separately and
collectively. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine individual perceptions
of the seven critical success factors’ relative influence on each critical delay
factor. Post-hoc examination was undertaken to determine which success
factors were most significant in avoiding the same delay factors.
The differences in the least influential factor were examined from the
perspectives of owners, contractors and engineers. One-Way ANOVA results
identified significant differences for delay factors change orders (D3),
inadequate contractor planning (D4), and subcontractor performance (D6).
Owners believed safety precautions (S6) to be the least influential factor for
change orders (D3) and inadequate contractor planning (D4), and use of
control system (S7) for delay factor subcontractor (D6). Engineers believed
project’s team motivation (S3) is the least influential factor for delay factors
change orders (D3, and that clarity of project scope (S4) for inadequate
contractor planning (D4) and safety precaution (S6) was least influential for
delay caused by subcontractors (D6). Contractors strongly believed that
safety precaution (S6) is the least influential success factor for all the delay
factors.
Generally all three groups were in agreement regarding the most influential
success factors and least influential success factors at avoiding delay factors,
with minor agreement in the middle range. The differences of opinion may be
due to owners’ tendency to view problems as created from the top down.
Engineers show more consideration for the influence of the success factor
safety precaution (S6) on the delay factors, which may be because engineers
202
take safety precautions more seriously compared to owners and contractors,
being concerned about the potential delays caused by safety mishaps.
Additionally, the nature of their work causes them to be concerned with
safety.
Results of the ranking of the influence of success factors by contractors and
engineers as a group showed a more significant relationship between these
two groups when compared with owners. This is also demonstrated in the
contractor’s and engineers’ Post Hoc results and t-tests. This may be
because contractors and engineers are closer to the project process
environment, and therefore possess a clearer knowledge of the field of
construction process than do owners.
Two Way ANOVA – combined group
A two–way ANOVA test was conducted in order to compare the responses of
all four groups i.e. owners and contractors; owners and engineers;
contractors and engineers; owners, contractors and engineers, and to identify
their perceptions of the relative influence of the seven critical success factors
on each individual critical delay factor. Two way ANOVA results showed
there are similarities and differences in the perceptions of these groups about
the influence of critical success factors on critical delay factors.
To conclude, the two way ANOVA results show that survey respondents
(owners, contractors and engineers) were in agreement regarding which
critical success factors were most influential in avoiding or preventing critical
delay factors. The results indicated strong agreement in the influence of
critical success factors and critical delay factors (success factors). The group
also agreed that the combined group of success factors (main effect) has
more influence on the delay factors. The groups have shown some
differences in the ranking of the success factors on the delay factors but they
consistently ranked the most influential success factor to avoid the delay
factors is project manager capabilities and experience (S5) and the least
influential is safety precautions and applied procedures(S6).
203
8.1.5. Overall Importance of Success Factors (Importance Index)
Groups’ Overall Perceived Success Factors Importance
The overall importance for each tested group, and the study’s overall
success factors were evaluated. The groups’ overall importance of success
factors on the delay factors are:
1. Project manager’s capability and experience (S5),
2. Organisational planning (S1),
3. Clarity of project scope and definition (S4),
4. Use of control systems (S7),
5. Project manager’s goal commitment (S2),
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation (S3) and
7. Safety precautions and applied procedure (S6)
The priority given to success factors in this study is not the same as the
priorities in the literature (Ashley et al, 1987). Project manager’s capability
and experience (S5) was ranked 5th in the literature and organisational
planning (S1) was the most important factor. Clarity of project scope (S4)
was ranked 4th in the literature. Use of control system (S7) which is the least
influential success factor in the literature was ranked 4th in this study. There
are a number of possible explanations for this outcome. First, this study
addressed only the seven success factors, which may have affected their
priority. Second, the target project was public, and was evaluated by different
project participants, compared with the study by Ashley et al (1987) where
data was obtained from eight companies, each contributing one average and
one outstanding project, totalling 16 projects, 82% of which were private.
Another reason could be due to the fact that the ranking of the success
factors in this study was done on projects during construction, whilst Ashley’s
study included projects in different stages of lifecycle. As this study was also
restricted to the Brunei building construction industry, with its different
environmental, political and cultural issues, other possible reasons could be
due to the immature construction industry and personnel capabilities in the
construction industry.
204
The findings of this survey result in a new hierarchy for the seven critical
success factors in avoiding the delay factors in building construction
processes. It is based on the importance of critical success factors identified
in this research. This will address the gap in the research literature.
8.1.6. Delphi Technique ( Ranking from expert panel)
The panel viewpoint obtained in the Delphi study is summarised statistically;
a two-round Delphi was achieved in the research and the results are as
follows. The first round responses of the Delphi survey were tabulated in
chapter 7 and analysed using a distribution ranking table to annotate the
average ranking, median ranking and the order of importance of each
strategy, as indicated in Table 7.2. The first round Delphi from expert panels
result in the ranking of the critical success factors as follows:
1. Project manager capabilities
2. Clarity of project scope and work definition
3. Organisational planning
4. Use of control system
5. Project manager’s goal commitment
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation
7. Safety precaution and applied procedure
The results of the responses of the strategy ranking and importance from two
rounds of the Delphi surveys were tabulated, averaged and used to validate
each strategy ranking of importance. The final ranking for the most important
critical success factors for building construction projects are represented in
Table (7.3) in Chapter 7. These are:
1. Project manager capabilities
2. Clarity of project scope and work definition
3. Organisational planning
4. Use of control system
5. Project manager’s goal commitment
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation
7. Safety precaution and applied procedure
205
8.2 STUDY CONCLUSION
The research identified the critical delay factors in the construction process
for building construction projects in Brunei Darussalam. Critical delay factors
which were identified are lack of communication, slow decision making,
change orders, inadequate contractor planning, finance and payment of
completed work, subcontractors, and inadequate contractor experience.
The similarity of several findings regarding delay factors in this research
compared to previous research findings from other developing countries
confirmed that project stakeholders in different developing countries face
similar problems in spite of different natural, economic, political and social
backgrounds (Ogunlana and Olomaiye – 1989). The difference is found in the
priorities of the most important factors for delay. This indicates that there are
special problems that generate delays in construction in terms of the culture,
environment and political situation of the country.
This research has demonstrated that there is strong agreement between
groups (owners, contractors, and engineers) on the correlation between
critical delay factors and critical success factors. This leads us to conclude
that owners, contractors and engineers are largely in agreement with regards
to their evaluation of success factors that avoid delay factors. In this research
a new hierarchy scheme for the seven critical success factors in avoiding the
identified critical delay factors has been created, based on the importance of
critical success factor outcomes from this research. The critical success
factors for the building construction process will address the gap in the
research literature in the construction industry. These factors are:
1. Project manager’s capabilities and experience(S5);
2. Organisational planning(S1);
3. Clarity of project scope and work definition(S4);
4. Use of control systems(S7);
5. Project manger’s goal commitment(S2);
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation(S3);
7. Safety precaution and applied procedures (S6).
206
The priority of success factors identified in this research is not reflected in the
literature because in this research, success was defined more broadly than
just delay. For example, organisational planning (S1) was ranked the most
important factor in the literature, but in this research it was ranked the second
most important success factor. The most important success factor identified
in this study, project manager’s capability and experience (S5) was ranked
fifth in the literature.
Use of control systems (S7) was ranked the 7th most influential success
factor in the literature (Ashley et al, 1987), whilst in this research it was
ranked 4th. The success factors ranked 2nd and 3rd in the literature (Ashley et
al ,1987) as the most important success factors were project manager’s goal
commitment (S2) and project team motivation and goal orientation (S3). In
this research, project manager’s goal commitment (S2) was ranked 5th and
project team motivation and goal orientation (S2) was ranked 6th. Safety
precaution (S6) was ranked the 7th most important success factor in this
research, but only 6th in the literature, (Ashley et al, 1987).
This discrepancy in the ranking of success factors could be explained in a
number of ways. First, this research limited the number of success factors to
seven, which may have affected their priority. Secondly, the research
focused on the delay factors relevant to the building construction process,
whilst the literature mostly identified success factors based on overall
construction projects, or on a particular segment of a construction project
such as productivity, quality or procurement. Thirdly, the target project was a
public project, and was evaluated by different project participants. The
literature on critical success factors focused on private projects, or both
public and private projects. Finally, this study was also restricted to the
Brunei building construction industry, with its different environmental, political
and cultural issues. Given the research circumstances and conditions, the
hierarchy derived from this study is consistently supported by the results from
all three groups (owners, contractors and engineers).
207
Compared to other studies in other countries on critical delay and success
factors, there are similar problems on delay factors and critical success
factors identified in the construction industry. However the difference can be
found in the ranking of the most critical success and critical delay factors.
This could be due to the countries’ immature construction industry, personal
capabilities in developing countries, and social, culture and environmental
problems in different countries.
Finally, the use of consensus-forming techniques allowed the merging of
experts’ opinions in order to rank the best means of achieving a better
performance for Brunei building construction projects. Theoretically, the
Delphi process can be continuously iterated until consensus is determined to
have been achieved. However, Cyphert and Gant (1971), Brooks (1979),
Ludwig (1994, 1997), and Custer, Scarcella and Stewart (1999) point out
three iterations are often sufficient to collect the needed information and to
reach a consensus in most cases.
Two round Delphi were achieved to determine the consensus opinion in this
study. The objective of the Delphi technique used was to determine a range
of possible program alternatives based on the list of critical success factors.
Secondly, the selected panel were equivalent in knowledge and experience
in construction, and the panel members are policy and strategy decision
makers who will utilise the outcomes of the Delphi technique. When panel
members are also strategic decision makers, Delphi moves from being a
group forecasting tool to facilitating group decision making by ensuring the
most rational policies emerge under a different set of working conditions and
resource constraints such as exists in the Brunei construction industry.
The final ranking list is as follows:
1. Project manager’s capabilities and experience
2. Clarity of project scope and work definition
3. Organisational planning
4. Use of control systems
5. Project manger’s goal commitment
208
6. Project team motivation and goal orientation
7. Safety precaution and applied procedures.
The group overall importance of success factors on delay factors for the
building construction industry were found to be of a different order, primarily
for two factors, clarity of project scope and work definition and organisational
planning, in the final ranking of Delphi survey. This could also be due to the
countries’ immature construction industry, personal capabilities in developing
countries, and social, culture and environmental problems in different
countries.
The aim of the research is to improve project management performance in
Brunei’s construction industry. Findings in this research assert that the critical
success factors perceived as most influential in avoiding or preventing critical
delay factors can lead to better performance within construction industries
and they are likely to improve success in building construction projects.
Consensus expert opinions were used to identify the most needed critical
success factors to take into account when considering how to improve project
performance in Brunei’s building construction industry.
8.3 LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH
Some limitations to this research were identified during the development of
the questionnaire, and during the data collection and analysis phase.
However despite the limitations as described below, the researcher was still
able to achieve valid data for this research. These limitations are:
Data collection took place during a season in which most of the
targeted expert panel members and engineers were on vacation. This
had a negative impact on the response rate. However a significant and
representative sample was still able to be achieved.
Since this is the first research to evaluate the delay factors and
success factors of building construction projects in Brunei, there is no
past research with which to compare the results of this research.
209
The project team for the project survey was no longer working in
Brunei and some data was collected from the project reports.
Despite requests from respondents for new, unique, or unlisted
success or delay factors, few such responses were given.
The targeted project cases differed according to project type, designer
type, kind of contract, and contractor classification.
The projects surveyed used a traditional contract, where this is the
most popular contract method used in public projects in Brunei.
8.4 CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH
The present study will contribute to the field by integrating knowledge about
critical success factors, as well as what is known about critical delay factors.
By learning which critical success factors are perceived as most influential in
avoiding or preventing critical delay factors, this study can lead to better
performance within construction industries. Although the research study
presented here was based in Brunei Darussalam, it is anticipated that these
results would be broadly applicable to other developing countries.
A unique strength of the present study, aside from being the first to
investigate the relationship of critical success factors identified in the
literature, and delay factors identified in building construction process, is that
it collected data from owners, contractors and engineers working on the
same projects. Separate survey data was also collected from owners,
contractors and engineers on the correlation of the critical delay factors and
critical success factors, based on their general experience. Consensus
expert opinions were used to identify the most needed critical success factors
when considering how to improve project performance in Brunei’s building
construction industry.
210
Finally this research can be used for future studies that examine critical
success and delay factor relationships. The identification of the success
factors for the construction process investigated in this research formed an
empirical study for future research on critical success factors in the building
construction industry.
8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future studies examining the effects of critical success factors to avoid or
prevent delay factors in the construction industry should consider the
following suggestions:
Brunei lacks empirical research in this area of study. This study will
therefore be the first of its kind to investigate the key success factors
for project success in Brunei’s building projects. It is anticipated that
this study will derive a foundation on which further local research can
be conducted for the improvement of project performance in the
construction industry.
Further research is needed to investigate potential improvements in
the implementation of project management systems in Brunei’s
construction Industry. The critical success factors in this study can be
used to investigate this. Efficient project management would result in
tangible outcomes for all aspects of planning, scheduling and
monitoring control of time, cost and specification of projects.
Implementing efficient management methods will overcome political,
organisational and cultural obstacles
The critical success factors found to be most influential in this study
could be utilized in future work which examines different situations and
environments. For example one could look specifically at industrial
facilities, or private sector projects. The same scientific methodology
can be used to rank the correlation of the success factors and delay
factors.
211
Applying the same study criteria to different procurement methods, for
example design and build, turnkey etc., could be valuable for the
construction industry to adopt a new approach to contracting and
contract award procedures, and will provide better control systems.
One could relate this study’s ideas with a focus specifically on projects
that experience significant delays, quality, productivity, or cost
overrun. There is the potential to develop a mathematical model
ranking the success factors for the construction process under
different headings in a hierarchical manner.
It is recommended that the methodology used in this research should
be applied to other countries, thereby increasing the data available for
future comparisons of different delay causes and critical success
factors. This will identify the criteria of each of the critical success
factors for relevance and adaptability to develop and developing
countries.
The use of consensus forming techniques allowed the merging of
expert opinions to rank the critical success factors to improve project
performance in the construction industry. The outcome of ranking the
critical success factors showed how these can be used to investigate
the best processes to enable the government to enhance project
performance. Further discussion to consider future policies and
strategies aimed at integrating and improving the construction industry
is also an option.
212
REFERENCES
Abdul-Rahman., Berawi H., Berawi M.A., Othaman M., and Yahya I.A.
(2006), Delay mitigation in the Malaysian Construction industry, Journal
Construction Engineering Management, 132(2), pp.125-133
Altschuld J.W. & Thomas P.M.(1991), Considerations in the application of a
modified screen test for Delphi survey data, Evaluation Review, 15(2),
pp179-188
Adams J.R, & Brandt S.E. (1983), Behavioral implications of the project
lifecycle In D.I Cleland. & W.R King. (Eds), Project management handbook
(pp 183 -204). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co
Ahmed S.M., Azhar.S.,Kappagntula,P. and Gollapudil. D. (2003), “Delays in
construction: a brief study of the Florida construction industry”, Proceedings
of the 39th Annual ASC Conference, Clenson University, Clenson, SC,
pp257-266
Alghbari W.A.M. (2005), “Factors affecting construction speed of
industrialized building system in Malaysia”, Master’s thesis, University Putra
Malaysia, Serdang
Aibinu A.A and Jagboro J.O. (2002), The effects of construction delays on
project delivery in Nigerian construction industry, Int J Project Management
20, pp.593– 599
Akinsola A.O., Potts K.F., Ndekugri I., & Harris, F.C. (1997), Identification
and evaluation of factors influencing variations on building projects,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol .15,(4), pp. 263-267
213
Albert, P.C Chan., David Scott & Ada, P.L.Chan (2004), Factors affecting the
success of a construction project, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol .130,(1), pp.153 – 155
Al-Momani A. (1996), Construction delay: a quantitative analysis techniques,
Construction Manage Econ 14 (5), pp. 375-394
Al-Momani A.H. (2000), Construction delay: a quantitative analysis,
International Journal of Project Management, 18, pp. 51-59
Altschuld J.W. & Thomas P.M. (1991), Considerations in the application of a
modified screen test for Delphi survey data, .Evaluation Review, 15(2), pp
179-188
Angela, Clarke. (1999), A practical use of key success factors to improve the
effectiveness of project management, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol .17, No. 3, pp.139 -145
Arditi D., Gunayadin H.M (1998), Factors that affect process quality in the life
cycle of building projects, Journal Construction Eng Manage, ASCE 124(3)
pp 194-203
Armstrong J. Scott. (1978), Long Range Forecasting, John Wiley, New York
Ashley & Jaselskis (1987), Determinants of construction project success,
Project Management Journal, Vol .18, (2), pp.69 – 79
Assaf S.A., Alkhalil M., Al-Hazmi M. (1995), Causes of delay in large building
construction projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE 11,(2)
pp.45-50
Avots I (1969), Why does project management fail? .California management
review, 12,(10),pp. 77-82
214
Baker,B.N., D.C. Murphy and D. Fisher (1988). Factors affecting project
success. International Project Management Handbook ed. D.I.Cleland and
W.R.King 2nd edition 902 -919, New York
Baldwin J.R and Manthel J.M.(1971), Causes of delay in the construction
industry. Journal of Construction Division, ASCE, 97, pp. 177-187
Barnes M. (1987), Construction Project management, Seminar on
“Construction Project Management, 21-22 October, London, England, 1987
Barnes N.M.L, and Wearne S.H. (1993), The future of major project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 11(3), pp. 135 -
142
Beale, P. and Freeman M. (1991), Successful project execution: a model.
Project Management Journal, 4 (December), pp. 23-30
Bedelin H.M (1996), Successful major projects in a changing industry. Civil
engineering, April, pp. 55-63
Belassi W., & Tukel O.I. (1996), A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects. International Project Management,
Vol.14,(3), 141-151
Belout A. (1998), Effects of human resource management on project
effectiveness and success: towards a new conceptual framework,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol.16(1), pp. 21-26
Bennet R. (1991), How is management research carried out? The
Management Research Handbook, Smoth N.C. and Danity P.(eds),
Rouledge, London pp 83-103
Bentley D. and Raftery G. (1992), Project management: key to success. Civil
Engineering,April, pp. 58-59
215
Brunei Darussalam, Long Term Development Plan, (2017 -2012)
Brunei Darussalam, Economic Development Annual Report, (2005)
Brooks K.W. (1979), Delphi Technique: Expanding applicatons, North Central
Association Quarterly, 53 pp 377-385
Bowden A & Gren, P. (2005), Doing phenomenography (Qualitative research
methods series). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT Publishing
Cash C. and Fox R. (1992), Elements of successful project management.
Journal of System Management, pp. 10-12
Chalabi F.A. & Camp D. (1984), Causes of delays and overruns of
construction Projects in developing countries, CIB Proceedings, no. 2, pp.
723-734
Chan A.P.C., Scott D., & Lam E.W.M. (1999). Critical success factors for
different project objectives. Journal Construction Engineering Management,
Vol 18(3), pp 120 -128
Chan D.W.M., & Kumaraswamy M.M. 1996), An evaluation of construction
time performance in building industry. Building and Environment, 31(6) pp
569-578
Chan D.W.M & Kumaraswamy M.M. (1997), A comparative study of causes
of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects. Journal Management
Engineering, Vol 15(1): 55 -63
Chan D.W.M., & Kumaraswamy M.M. (1998), Contributors to construction
delays. Construction Management and Economics, 16 pp. 17-29
216
Chan D. W. M and M.M. Kumaraswamy M.M.(2002), A comparative
construction durations: lessons learned from Hongkong building projects, Int
J Project Manage 20 , pp. 23-35
Chan H.D.C and C.M.Tan (1995), Impact of management styles on project
performance, Published in the proceedings of the first International
Conference on Construction Project Management, Singapore pg 227 -233.
Chen Y., Zhu D., and Li, C. (1990), Application of the Delphi Method in
China, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38, pp 293-304
Chia Chien Hsu & Brian A Sandford. (2007), The Delphi Technique: Making
Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10)
pp. 1-7
Chua D.K.H., Kog T.C., && Loh P.K. (1999), Critical success factors for
different project objectives. Journal construction Engineering Management,
Vol 125(3), pp. 142 -150
Chua D.K.H and Loh P.K. (1997), Neural networks for construction project
success. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol 13(4), pp.317-328
Clarke A. (1999), A practical use of key success factors to improve the
effectiveness of project management, International Journal of Project
Management, 17(3), pp. 139-145
Cleland D.I. & King W.R (1983), Systems analysis and project management.
McGraw Hill, New York, Concept, 2004, http://www.concept.ntnu.no
Code of practice of Project Management for Construction and Development
(2002), 3rd edition. The Chartered Institute of Building
217
Daniel W.M.Chan.,and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy . (1997), A comparative
study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects,
International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), pp. 55-63
De Wit, A. (1988), Management of project success. International Journal of
Project Management 6(3), pp.164 – 170
D.K.H.Chua.,Y.C.Kog and P.K.Loh.(1999), Critical success factors for
different project objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management may/june 1999
Dale Christenson & Derek H T Walker (2004), Understanding the role of
“vision” in project success, Project Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp.39 -53
Dalkey N.C. (1967), Delphi. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation
Dalkey N.C., & Helmer O. (1963), An experimental application of the Delphi
method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9,(3), pp 458-467
Dissanayaka S.M., & Kumaraswamy M.M. (1999a), Comparing contributors
rme and cost performance in building projects, Building and Environment, 34,
pp 31-42
Dissanayaka, S.M., & Kumaraswamy, M.M (1999b), Evaluation of factors
affecting time and cost performance in Hong Kong building projects,
Engineering Construction Architect Management, vol. 6,(3), pp. 287 -298
Edward J, Jaselskis & David B, Ashley, (1991), Optimal of project
management resources for achieving success. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol .11, June 1991 No 2
Frame J.D. (1994). The new project management: Tools for an age of rapid
change, corporate and other business realities.Jossey Bass Inc
218
Frimpong Y., Oluwoye J and Crawford L. (2003), Causes of delay and cost
overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries;
Ghana as a case study, Int J Project Manage 21 , pp. 321-326
Gale A.W. & Fellows R.F. (1990), Challenge and innovation: the challenge to
the construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 8 pp.
431-436
Gena L. Abraham. (2003), Critical success factors for the construction
industry, Construction research congress, winds of change:integration and
innovations in construction, proceedings of the congress,pp 521-529
Ghaleb Y.Abassi & Hisham Al-Mharmah (2000): Project management
practice by public sector in a developing country, Vol.18,(2),pp.105 – 109
Green P.J. (1982 March), The content of college level author leadership
course. Paper presented at the Conference of the Northwest District
Association for the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, Spokane, WA
Hatush Z., and Skitmore M. (1997), Evaluating contractor pre-qualification
data: selection criteria and project success factors, Construction
Management and Economics, 15, pp. 129-147
Hassan A.Q.(1995). Don’t burn the bridge, Journal Management
Engineering. Vol 11(6), pp.22
Hasson F., Kenney S., & McKenna H. (2000), Research guidelines for the
Delphi Survey technique, Journal of Advanced Nursing,32(4) pp.1008-1015
Helmer O. (1967), Systematic use of expert opinions (Report No P-3721).
Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation
219
Helmer O. (1977), Problems in Futures Research – Delphi and Casual Cross
Impact Analysis, Futures 9, pp.17-31
Helmer O. (1983), Looking forward: A guide to future research. Beverley
Hills, CA: Sage
Hensey M. (1991), Essential success factors for strategic planning, .Journal
of Management in Engineering, 7(2), April,.pp .167-177
Hubbard D.G (1990), Successful utility project management from lesson
learned, Project Management Journal., 21(3), pp. 19-23
Hughes M.W. (1986), Why project fail: The effect of ignoring the obvious. Ind
Eng (1986),Vol.18,pp.14 -18
Hussey.Jill & Hussey.Roger (1997). Business Research, A Practical guide for
undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Isaac S. & Michel W.B. (1981), Handbook in research and evaluation. San
Diego, CA: EdiTS Publishers
Jaselskis E. and Ashley D.B. (1988), Achieving construction project success
through predictive discrete choice models in Association of Project
Managers, Proceedings 9th World Congress Project Management,
September, 4-9, 1988, Glasgow, Scotland pp. 71-85
Jaselskis E.J. and Ashley D.B. (1991), Optimal allocation of project
management resources for achieving success. Journal Construction Eng
Management.,Vol. 117(2), pp.321-340
Jeffery K.Pinto. & Dennis P.Slevin. (1987), Critical success factors in
successful project implementation. IEEE transaction on engineering
management, 34(1), pp. 22-27
220
Jeffery K.Pinto. & O.P.Kharbanda (1988). Successful project managers:
Leading your team to success
Jha K.N. and Lyer K.C. (2004). Critical factors affecting quality of Indian
construction projects. World Construction of Project Management.1st
International conference may 27 2004 – may 28 2004, Toronto Canada
Kamming P.F., Olomaiyr P.O., Holt G.D., & harris F.C. (1997).Factors
influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in
Indonesia. Construction Management Economics, Vol .15(1), pp. 83 -94
Kezner H. (1998). Project management: A system approach to planning and
controlling (6th Ed), Van Nostrand Reinhold
Kezner Harold. (2006). Project management: A system approach to planning
and scheduling (7th Ed), Van Nostrand Reinhold
Kog Y.C. et.al, (1999), Key determinants for construction schedule
performance. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), pp. 351-
359
Koontz H. & O’Donnell G. (1976), Management: A system and contingency
analysis of managerial functions (6th edition). New York: McGraw Hill
Kothari A.K. (1986), Success in project management. In Project Management
Institute Proceedings of the Project Management Institute, September 20-25,
1986, Montreal, Canada:Drexel Hill, pp.240-245
Kumaraswamy M. and Chan D. (1998), Contributors to construction delay,
Construct manage Economic, 16 (1), pp.17 -29
Lechler T. (1998), When it comes to project management, it’s the people that
matter, An empirical analysis of project management I Germany, IRNOPIII,
The nature and role of projects.
221
Lim C.S.& Mohammed M.Z., An explatory study into recurring construction
problem.(2000), International Journal of Project Management, 18(3), pp. 267-
273
Linn C. Stuckenbruck. and Asghar Zomorrodian. (1987), Project
management: the promise for developing countries, 5(3) August.
Linstone H. & Turoff M. (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications, Addison-Wesley, London
Locke D. (1984), Project Management. St Martins Press, New York.
Ludwig B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the
Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension, 35 (5) pp 1-4 Retrieved
November 6 2005 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/tt2html
Madu C., Kei C. & Madu A, (1991), Setting Priorities for the IT industry in
Taiwan – A Delphi Study, Long Range Planning, 24(5),pp.105-118
Martin C.C. (1976), Project Management.Amaco, New York P. (1987), Delphi
Revisited: Expert Opinion in Urban Analysis, Urban studies, 24 pp. 217-225
Mansfield N.R., Ugwu O.O., & Doran T. (1994), Causes of Delay and causes
of overruns in Nigerian construction projects, International Journal of
management, 12(4), pp.254-260
Masser I. and Foley P. (1987), Delphi revisiter: expert opinion in urban
analysis, Urban Studies, 24, pp. 217-225
Mohammed M. Alkhathami. (2004), Examination of the correlation of critical
success and delay factors in construction projects in Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Ph.D. dissertation, school of engineering, University of Pittsburgh.
222
Mc Cuen R.H ed. (1996). The Elements of Academic Research, ASCE press,
New York
Mengesha Wubishet Jekale. (2004). Performances for Public Construction
Projects in Developing Countries: Federal Road & Educational Building
Projects in Ethiophia Norwegian University of Science and Technology:
Doctoral Thesis 2004: 45
Meredith, J. R. & Mantel, S. J. (1989), Project Management : A Managerial
Approach, John Wiley and sons, Canada.
Manavazhia M.R. and D.K. Adhikarib, Material and equipment procurement
delays in highway projects in Nepal, Int J Project Manage, 20 (2002), pp.
627-632
Miller L.E. (2006 October), Determining what could/should be: The Delphi
technique and its application. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2006
annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association,
Columbus Ohio
Mitroff I.L. & Turoff M. (1975). Philosophical and methodological foundations
of Delphi. In H.A Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds), The Delphi method: Techniques
and applications (pp 17-35). Reading MA:Addison-Wesley Publishing Co
Moavenzadeh F. & Hagopian, F. (1984), The construction industry and
economic growth, Asian National Development, June/July, pp. 56-60
Morris P.W.G. (1983), Managing project interfaces – key points for project
success, Project Management handbook, D.I Cleland and W.R.King, eds.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y., pp 3-36
Morris P. W., & Hough, G. H (1987), The Anatomy of major projects, John
Wiley and Sons, New York
223
Muhammad Imran Yousuf. (2007), Using Expert’s Opinions ‘Through Delphi
Technique’, Practical Assessment ,Research & Evaluation,(2007), 12(4), pp.
1- 5
Murali Sambasivan. & Yau Wan Soon. (2007), Causes and effect of delays in
Malaysian Construction Industry, International Journal of Project
Management.
Muspratt M. (1987), Conditions affecting projects in less developed countries,
Project Management, 5(1), pp.45-53
Nguyen DL, Ogunlana SO, Quang T and Lam KC. (2004), Large construction
projects in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam, International
Journal of Project Management, Elsevier, 22(7), pp. 553-561
Nguyen DL, Ogunlana S and Lan DT. (2004), A study on project success
factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering Construction
and Architectural Management, 11(6), pp404-413
Noulmanee A., Wachirathmrojn J., Tantiichattanont P., Sittivijan P. (1999),
Internal causes of delays in highway construction projects in Thailand
Nunnally S.W. (2004), Construction method and management, Sixth edition,
Person Education, Inc
Odeh A. M and Bettaineh H. T. (2002), Causes of construction delay:
traditional contracts, Int J Project Manage Property Construction 20, pp. 67-
73
Odussami K.T, Iyegba R.R.O & Ominn M.M. (2003), The relationship
between project leadership, team composition and construction project
performance in Nigeria, International Journal of Project Management. Vol.
21, No. 7, pp .519-527
224
Ofori G. (1990), The Construction Industry: Aspects of its Economics and
Management. Singapore University Press, Singapore
Ofori G. (1994), Practice of construction industry development at the
crossroads, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 3, No.4, pp.
271-288
Ofori G. (2000), Challenges of construction industries in developing
countries: lessons from various countries. Proceedings of the 2nd
International conference of the CIB TG29 on Construction in Developing
Countries: Challenges facing the construction industry in developing
countries, 15 -17 November 2000, Gabarone, Botswana,pp. 40-50
Ofori G. (2001), Indications for measuring construction industry development
in developing countries, Building Research Environment, 24(2), pp.191-196
Ogunlana S. O. & Krit Prumkuntong. (1996), Construction delays in a fast
growing economy: Compare Thailand with other countries. International
Journal of Project Management 14 (1), pp.37-45
Olav Torp Kjell Austerg & Wubished Jekae Mengesha., Critical success
factors for project performance:
PMBOK (2004), A guide to project management body of knowledge.
Parfitt M.K., & Sanvido V.E. (1993), Checklist of critical success factors for
building projects, Journal of management in engineering, 9(3), pp.243-249
Partfit M.K. (1989), Key factors for success in building project delivery,
Report of Symp on key factors in Building Project Delivery Systems, Penn
State Consortium for the Advancement of Building Sciences, pp. 1-7
PintoJ.K. & Selvin,D.P. (1987), Critical factors in successful project
implementation, IEEE Trans Eng Management. Vol. 34, pp. 22-27
225
Pinto J. & Dennis P, Project Success: definitions and measurement
techniques. Project Management Journal XIX 1 (1988), pp. 67-72
Pinto J.K. and Prescott J.E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over
the stages in the project cycle, Journal of Management, 14, pp. 67-75
Pinto J.K., & Prescott J.E. (1990), Planning and tactical factors in the project
implementation process. Journal Management Studies 305 -325
Pinto J.K and Selvin D.P. (1983, Critical success factor in R & D projects.
Research Technology Management, 32, pp.31-33
Pinto J.K and Selvin D.P (1988), Critical success factors across the project
life cycle. Project Management Journal, 19(3), pp. 67 – 75.
Pinto J. & Kharbanda, O.P., 1995, Successful Project Managers: Leading
your team to success New York: Van Nonstrand Reinhold
Reich Y. (1994), Layered models of research methodologies, artificial
intelligence for engineering design. Analysis and Manufacturing, vol.8, pp.
263-274
Rieger W. (1986), Directions in Delphi Developments: Dissertations and
Their Quality, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 29, pp.195-204
Rodney Turner J, Ralf Muller (2005), The project manager’s leadership style
as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management
Journal, Vol. 36, No 2, pp. 49 -62
Rockart J.F. (1979), Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard
Buisness Review, Mar – April, pg 85
226
Rockart J.F. (1982), The changing role of information system executive: A
critical success factors perspective
Rohatgi K., and Rohatgi P.(1979), Delphi as a Tool for identifying Future
Appropriate Technologies in India, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 14, pp.65-76
Rowe G., Wright,G., and Bolger F.(1991), Delphi: A Reevaluation of
Research and Theory, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39,
pp.235-251
Rubin I.M & Seeling W.(1967), Experience as a factor in the selection and
performance of project managers. IEEE Trans Eng Management., Vol.14 (3),
pp. 131-134
Sadi A. Assaf & Sadiq Al-Hejji .Causes of delay in large construction projects,
Int J Project Manage, (2006), 24(4), pp. 349 -357
S.A. Assaf, M. Alkhalil and M. Al-Hazmi.(1995), Causes of delay in large
building construction projects, J Manage Eng, ASCE 11(2), pp. 45-50
Sanvido V., Grobler F., Pariff K., Guvens M., & Coyle M. (1992), Critical
success factors for construction projects,. Journal Construction Engineering
Management, Vol .118(1), pp.94-111
Scheele D.S. (1975), Reality construction as a product of Delphi interactions.
In H.A.Linstone & M Turoffs (Eds), The Delphi method: Techniques and
applications (pp 37-71). Reading MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company
Skutsch M., & Hall D. (1973), Delphi Potential uses in education planning. In
J.L Barnes, (1987), An international study of curricular organizers for the
study of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
227
Stone E.F. (1978), Research methods in organizational behaviour, Goodyear
publishing company, Santa Monica, CA
Strauss, Anslem and Colon, Juliet (1990), Basic of qualitative research,
Newbury park sage.
Stuckenbruck L. and Asghar Z (1987), Project management: the promise for
developing countries, Project Management, 5(3), pp.167-175
Songer A.D, and Molenaar K.R, (1997), Project characteristics for successful
public-sector design-build. Journal Construction Eng Management, 123(1),
pp.34-40
Sweis G., Sweis R., Abu Hammad A., & Shboul A.(2008), Delays in
construction projects : The case of Jordan, International Journal of Project
Management, 26, pp.665-674
Syed M.Ahmed., Salman Azhar., Pragnya Kappagantula., and Dharam
Gollapundi. (2003), Delays in Construction: A brief study of the Florida
construction industry, ASC proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference,
Clemson University –Clemson, South Carolina, pp. 257-266
http://asceditor.unl.edu/archives/2003/Ahmed03.htm
Tommy Y. Lo., Ivan W.F.Fung., and Karen C.F.Tung (2006), Construction
delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 132(6) pp.636-649
Toor S.R. and Ogunlana S.O (2008), Critical COMs of success in large scale
construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry,
International Journal of Project Management, 26, pp. 420-430
Toor S.R. and Ogunlana S.O (2008), Problems causing delays in major
construction projects in Thailand, Construction Management and Economics
26 pp 395-408
228
Tukel O.I & Rom W.O (1995), Analysis of the characteristics of projects in
diverse industries working paper, Cleveland State University, Cleveland
Ohio.
Turin D.A (1973), The Construction Industry: Its Economic Significance and
Its Role in Development, (2nd ed), University College Environmental
Research Group UCERG, London
Turner J. R and R.Muller (2003), On nature of project as temporary
organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1)
Trigwell K. (2000), Phenomenography: Variation and dissenment, Improving
student learning. Proceedings of the 1999 7th International symposium,
Oxford, Oxford centre for staff and learning department.
Ubaid A.G. (1991), Factors affecting contractor performance. Master thesis,
CEM Dept., KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
United Nation Industrial Developments Organisations, UNIDO (1993),
Prospects for the Development of the Construction Industry in Developing
Countries, ID/WG. 528/5, Vienna
Van Dijk J.(1990a), Delphi Questionnaires versus Individual and Group
Interviews: A Comparison Case, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change,37, pp.293-304
Van Dijk J. (1990), Delphi Method as a Learning Instrument: Bank employees
discussing automation project, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 37, pp.399-407
Van Dijk J.A.G.M. (1990), Delphi questionnaires versus individual and group
interviews: A comparison case. Technological Forcasting and Social Change,
37 pp.293-304
229
Vasantha Abeysekara & Campbell Melean (2001), Seventh annual
conference University of Salford
Victor Sanvidor (1992), Critical success factors for construction projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1)
Wateridge J.F (1995), IT projects: a basis for success. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol.13, No. 3, pp.169 -172
Waissbluth M., and de Gortari A.(1990), A Methodology for Science and
Technology Planning Based Upon Economic Scenarios and Delphi
Techniques: The Case of Mexican Agro industry, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 37, pp 383-397
.Walid Belasi & Oya Icmeli Tukel (1996), A framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects, Vol. 14 (3), pp.141-151
Walke, D.H.T.(1995), An investigation into construction time performance.
Construction Management Economic.,Vol. 118(1), pp.94 -111
Walker D.H.T (1997), An investigation into construction time performance,
Construction Management Economic., 13(3), 263-274
Walker D.H.T., & Vines, M.W. (2000), Australian multi-unit residential project
construction time performance factors. Engineering Construction Architect
Management.Vol. 7(3), pp. 278 -284
Webler T., Levine D., Rakel H., and Renn O.(1991), A Novel Approach to
Reducing Uncertainty: The Group Delphi, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 39 pp. 253-263
Wells J. (1986), The Construction Industry in Developing Countries:
Alternative Strategies for Development. Croom Helm Ltd, London
230
Williams Terry (2003), Assessing extension of time delays on major projects,
Int journal Project Manage, 21, pp.19-26
Witkin B.R & Altshuld J.W. (1995), Planning and conducting needs
assessment: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc
World Bank (1984), The Construction Industry: Issues and Strategies in
Developing Countries, International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Worthen B.R., & Sandlers J.R. (1987), Educational evaluation: Alternative
approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman
Yin R, K. (1994), Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed) Sage
Publication
Yin R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousands
Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications, 2003. 3rd ed
Young S.J., & Jamieson L.M. (2001), Delivery methodology of the Delphi: A
comparison of two approaches. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 19(1), pp.42-58
Yuxiang, C., Donghua, Z, and Changgeng, L. (1990), Applications of the
Delphi Method in China, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38,
pp.293 -305
231
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Appendix A1 – Gross Domestic Product Average Annual Growth Rates By Kind of
Economic Activity during RKN6, RKN7 and RKN8
SECTOR
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH
RKN6 1991-1995
RKN7 1996-2000
RKN8 2001-2005
l. AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERY ll. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
1. Mining 2. Manufacturing 3. Construction 4. Electricity and Water
lll. SERVICES SECTOR
1. Transport & Communication 2. Trade 3. Finance 4. Real Estate & Ownership of Dwellings 5. Private Services 6. Government Services
1.7 3.7 3.1 3.9 8.2 7.3 2.2 2.5 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.8 2.8
6.9 0.9 1.6 2.5 11.9 6.2 2.0 2.9 1.6 4.8 6.1 3.3 0.8
7.0 1.3 0.7 1.3 8.4 3.3 3.3 2.1 5.5 5.3 0.9 4.5 2.7
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT 3.2 1.3 2.7
Source: Brunei Darussalam Long-Term Development
232
Appendix A2 – Gross Domestic Product by Kind of Economic Activity at Current and Constant prices, 2000 – 2005 Brunei Darussalam
Source: Brunei Darussalam Long-Term Development
233
Appendix A3 – Percent Distribution of Gross Domestic Product by Kind of Economic Activity at Current and Constant prices, 2000 – 2005 Brunei
Darussalam
Source: Brunei Darussalam Long-Term Development
234
APPENDIX B
Appendix B1 – t Test Owners and Contractors- Success Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p)
S1 Owners 30 4.0333 .96431 .540
.591
Contractors 33 3.8788 1.26880
S2 Owners 30 3.9333 .94443
.720 .474 Contractors 33 3.7273 1.28142
S3 Owners 30 3.4333 1.33089
-1.360 .179 Contractors 33 3.8788 1.26880
S4 Owners 30 3.9667 .88992
-.434 .666 Contractors 33 4.0606 .82687
S5 Owners 30 3.9333 .94443
-.617 .540 Contractors 33 4.0909 1.07132
S6 Owners 30 3.6000 1.19193
.901 .371 Contractors 33 3.3030 1.40278
S7 Owners 30 3.9333 .94442
1.598 .115 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 : Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5 : Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
Appendix B2 – t Test Owners and Contractors –Delay Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p) D1 Owners 30 3.2667 1.47401
.522 .603 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
D2 Owners 30 3.9667 .88992 2.080 .042
Contractors 33 3.3636 1.34206 D3 Owners 30 3.6667 1.24106
1.865 .067 Contractors 33 3.0303 1.44665
D4 Owners 30 4.0333 .96431 1.637 .107
Contractors 33 3.5455 1.34840 D5 Owners 30 3.2667 1.48401
.968 .336 Contractors 33 2.9091 1.44403
D6 Owners 30 3.3333 1.47001 -2.481 .016
Contractors 33 4.0909 .91391 D7 Owners 30 3.6333 1.29943
.530 .598 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2: Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
235
Appendix B3 – t Test Owners and Engineers – Success Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p)
S1 Owners 30 4.0333 .96431 .036
.972
Engineers 40 4.0250 .97369
S2 Owners 30 3.9333 .94443
3.127 .003 Engineers 40 3.0000 1.41421
S3 Owners 30 3.4333 1.33089
-.980 .331 Engineers 40 3.7250 1.15442
S4 Owners 30 3.9667 .88992
2.600 .011 Engineers 40 3.2000 1.41784
S5 Owners 30 3.9333 .94443
.241 .810 Engineers 40 3.8750 1.04237
S6 Owners 30 3.6000 1.19193
2.836 .006 Engineers 40 2.6750 1.45686
S7 Owners 30 3.9333 .94442
1.439 .155 Engineers 40 3.5250 1.32021
Appendix B4 – t Test Owners and Engineers –Delay Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p)
D1 Owners 30 3.2667 1.47401
1.345 .183 Engineers 40 2.8000 1.39963
D2 Owners 30 3.9667 .88992
3.844 .000 Engineers 40 2.8000 1.47109
D3 Owners 30 3.6667 1.24106
2.367 .021 Engineers 40 2.9000 1.41058
D4 Owners 30 4.0333 .96431
4.267 .000 Engineers 40 2.8000 .32355
D5 Owners 30 3.2667 1.48401
1.068 .289 Engineers 40 2.9000 1.3735
D6 Owners 30 3.3333 1.47001
1.035 .304 Engineers 40 2.9750 1.40489
D7 Owners 30 3.6333 1.29943
.898 .372 Engineers 40 3.3500 1.31168
Appendix B5 – t Test Contractor and Engineer- Success Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p)
S1 Contractors 33 3.8788 1.26880
-.557 .579 Engineers 40 4.0250 .97369
S2 Contractors 33 3.7273 1.28142
2.281 .026 Engineers 40 3.0000 1.41421
S3 Contractors 33 3.8788 1.26880
.542 .590 Engineers 40 3.7250 1.15442
S4 Contractors 33 4.0606 .82687
3.079 .003 Engineers 40 3.2000 1.41784
S5 Contractors 33 4.0909 1.07132
.870 .387 Engineers 40 3.8750 1.04237
S6 Contractors 33 3.3030 1.40278
1.864 .066 Engineers 40 2.6750 1.45686
S7 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
-.223 .824 Engineers 40 3.5250 1.32021
236
Appendix B6 – t Test Contractors and Engineers –Delay Factors
GROUP N Mean Std D t Sig.(p)
D1 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
2.007 .049 Engineers 40 2.8000 1.39963
D2 Contractors 33 3.3636 1.34206
1.695 .095 Engineers 40 2.8000 1.47109
D3 Contractors 33 3.0303 1.44665
.388 .699 Engineers 40 2.9000 1.41058
D4 Contractors 33 3.5455 1.34840
2.356 .021 Engineers 40 2.8000 .32355
D5 Contractors 33 2.9091 1.44403
.027 .975 Engineers 40 2.9000 1.3735
D6 Contractors 33 4.0909 .91391
3.926 .000 Engineers 40 2.9750 1.40489
D7 Contractors 33 3.4545 1.37138
.332 .741 Engineers 40 3.3500 1.31168
237
APPENDIX C t Test – CSF’s on CDF’s
Appendix C1 – Owners and Contractors t Test – CSF’s on CDF’s
DELAY 1
OCD1SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.5882 1.50245
-.088 .931 C 19 3.6316 1.46099
S2D1 O 17 3.0588 1.34493
-.556 .582 C 19 3.3158 1.41628
S3D1 O 17 2.5882 1.32565
-1.696 .099 C 19 3.3684 1.42246
S4D1 O 17 3.1765 1.50977
-.583 .564 C 19 3.4737 1.54087
S5D1 O 17 4.9588 1.29762
.811 .423 C 19 3.6842 1.45498
S6D1 O 17 2.6471 1.53872
-.632 .531 C 19 2.8474 1.31122
S7D1 O 17 3.3529 1.32009
-.035 .972 C 19 3.3684 1.34208
O: Owners, C: contractors CSF: critical success factors CDF : critical delay factors S!D!: influence of success factor 1 on delay factor 1 and so on for all success factors on each delay factor
DELAY 2 OCD2SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D2 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-1.607 .116 C 27 3.9259 1.41220
S2D2 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
-.816 ,419 C 27 3.4815 1.18874
S3D2 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
-1.022 .313 C 27 3.2222 .93370
S4D2 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-1.386 .173 C 27 3.8519 1.37851
S5D2 O 17 3.9412 1,24853
-1.447 .155 C 27 4.4074 .88835
S6D2 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-.046 .964 C 27 2.7778 .80064
S7D2 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.577 .014 C 27 3.6296 1.07946
238
DELAY 3
OCD3SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D3 O 15 3.4000 1.35225
-2.010 .053 C 20 4.2000 1.00525
S2D3 O 15 2.9333 1.27988
-2.420 .021 C 20 4.0000 1.29777
S3D3 O 15 3.1333 1.30201
-1.474 .150 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
S4D3 O 15 3.4000 1.35225
-.821 .417 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
S5D3 O 15 3.4667 1.45733
-2.138 .040 C 20 4.3500 .98809
S6D3 O 15 2.7333 1.22280
-.701 .488 C 20 3.0000 1.02598
S7D3 O 15 3.2000 1.32017
-1.859 .072 C 20 4.0000 1.21395
DELAY 4
OCD4SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D4 O 18 3.6111 1.46082
-.1460 .153 C 20 4.2000 1.00525
S2D4 O 18 3.2222 1.47750
-1.728 .093 C 20 4.0000 1.29777
S3D4 O 18 3.2778 1.44733
-1.113 .273 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
S4D4 O 18 3.5000 1.46528
-.585 .562 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
S5D4 O 18 3.0000 1.49509
-3.315 .002 C 20 4.3500 .98809
S6D4 O 18 3.0000 1.49509
.000 1.00 C 20 3.0000 1.02598
S7D4 O 18 3.7222 1.27443
-.688 .496 C 20 4.0000 1.21395
239
DELAY 5
OCD5SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D5 O 16 3.1250 1.50245
-.863 .332 C 20 3.6000 1.46099
S2D5 O 16 3.0000 1.41421
-.939 .354 C 20 3.4000 1.14248
S3D5 O 16 2.9375 1.52616
-.675 .504 C 20 3.2500 1.25132
S4D5 O 16 3.3750 1.36015
-.176 .861 C 20 3.4500 1.19087
S5D5 O 16 3.6250 1.36015
-1.809 ,284 C 20 4.1000 1.25237
S6D5 O 16 2.7500 1.39044
.000 1.00 C 20 2.7500 1.25132
S7D5 O 3.0000 1.41421
-1.687 .099 C 3.8000 1.39925
DELAY 6
OCD6SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D6 O 14 3.0000 1.35873
-3.440 .002 C 19 4.4211 1.01739
S2D6 O 14 3.0714 1.32806
-2.806 .009 C 19 4.1579 .89834
S3D6 O 14 2.9286 1.26881
-.899 .376 C 19 3.2632 .87191
S4D6 O 14 3.2143 1.42389
-2.333 .026 C 19 4.1579 .89834
S5D6 O 14 3.0714 1.32806
-3.550 .001 C 19 4.3684 .76089
S6D6 O 14 2.7143 1.38278
-.674 .505 C 19 3.0000 1.05409
S7D6 O 14 2.6429 1.27745
-3.615 .001 C 19 4.0000 .88192
240
Appendix C2 – Contractor and Engineers –t Test CSF’s on CDF’s
DELAY 7
OCD7SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D7 O 17 3.5882 1.27764
-2.873 .006 C 15 4.6667 .62721
S2D7 O 17 2.9412 1.51948
-1.668 .106 C 15 3.8000 1.37321
S3D7 O 17 3.5294 1.32842
.547 .588 C 15 3.2667 1.38701
S4D7 O 17 3.5294 1.46277
-.673 .506 C 15 3.8667 1.35576
S5D7 O 17 3.7647 1.25147
-2.312 .028 C 15 4.6667 .89974
S6D7 O 17 2.7059 1.35852
.406 .688 C 15 2.5333 .99043
S7D7 O 17 3.4118 1.32565
-1.915 .065 C 15 4.2000 .94112
DELAY 1
CED1SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 19 3.6316 1.46099
-1.333 .189 E 30 4.0667 .82768
S2D1 C 19 3.3158 1.41628
-1.176 .246 E 30 3.7000 .87691
S3D1 C 19 3.3684 1.42246
.005 .996 E 30 3.3667 .92786
S4D1 C 19 3.4737 1.54087
-3.937 .000 E 30 4.7000 .59596
S5D1 C 19 3.6842 1.45498
-3.414 .001 E 30 4.7000 .59596
S6D1 C 19 2.9474 1.31122
-.608 .546 E 30 3.1667 1.17688
S7D1 C 19 3.3684 1.34208
-1.048 .300 E 30 3.7000 .87691
E: engineers, C: contractors CSF: critical success factors CDF : critical delay factors S!D!: influence of success factor 1 on delay factor 1 and so on for all success factors on each delay factor
241
DELAY 2
CED2SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 27 3.9259 1.41220
-.803 .425 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S2D1 C 27 3.4815 1.18874
-1.390 .170 E 38 3.9211 1.30242
S3D1 C 27 3.2222 .93370
.034 .973 E 38 3.2105 1.59658
S4D1 C 27 3.8519 1.37851
-1.076 .286 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S5D1 C 27 4.4074 .88835
1.096 .277 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S6D1 C 27 2.7778 .80064
-1.157 .252 E 38 3.1316 1.43642
S7D1 C 27 3.6296 1.07946
-.168 .867 E 38 3.6842 1.41622
DELAY 3
CED3SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 20 4.2000 1.00525
-1.613 .113 E 32 4.5625 .61892
S2D1 C 20 4.0000 1.29777
-.262 .794 E 32 4.0938 1.22762
S3D1 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
1.647 .106 E 32 3.1563 1.32249
S4D1 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
-.972 .336 E 32 4.0625 1.10534
S5D1 C 20 4.3500 . .98809
-.101 .920 E 32 4.3750 .79312
S6D1 C 20 3.0000 1.02598
-1.762 .084 E 32 3.5313 1.07716
S7D1 C 20 4.0000 1.21395
-1.715 .093 E 32 4.4688 .76134
242
DELAY 4
CED4SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 20 4.2000 1.00525
2.275 .027 E 32 3.4063 1.34066
S2D1 C 20 4.0000 1.29777
-.729 .470 E 32 4.2188 .87009
S3D1 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
2.729 .009 E 32 2.8125 1.22967
S4D1 C 20 3.7500 1.16416
2.729 .009 E 32 2.8125 1.22967
S5D1 C 20 4.3500 .98809
.244 .809 E 32 4.2813 .99139
S6D1 C 20 3.0000 1.02598
-4.307 .000 E 32 4.2813 1.05446
DELAY 5
CED5SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 20 3.6000 1.39170
.897 .373 E 36 3.2222 1.56955
S2D1 C 20 3.4000 1.14248
.820 .416 E 36 3.0833 1.50000
S3D1 C 20 3.2500 1.25132
..850 .399 E 36 2.9400 1.30809
S4D1 C 20 3.4500 1.19097
-.636 .528 E 36 3.6944 1.47007
S5D1 C 20 4.1000 1.25237
-.782 .438 E 36 4.3333 .95618
S6D1 C 20 2.7500 1.25132
-.293 .771 E 36 2.8611 1.41730
S7D1 C 20 3.8000 1.39925
.339 .736 E 36 3.6667 1.41421
243
DELAY 6
CED6SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 19 4.4211 1.01739
.832 .409 E 36 4.1667 1.10841
S2D1 C 19 4.1579 .89834
1.129 .264 E 36 3.8056 1.19090
S3D1 C 19 3.2632 .87191
1.430 .159 E 36 2.7778 1.33333
S4D1 C 19 4.1579 .89834
1.856 .069 E 36 3.5556 1.25230
S5D1 C 19 4.3684 .76089
1.154 .254 E 36 4.0278 1.15847
S6D1 C 19 3.0000 1.05409
.622 .537 E 36 2.7778 1.35459
S7D1 C 19 4.0000 .88192
.940 .351 E 36 3.6944 1.26083
DELAY 7
CED7SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 C 15 4.6667 .61721
1.237 .222 E 36 4.3611 .86694
S2D1 C 15 3.8000 1.37321
.296 .769 E 36 3.6944 1.06421
S3D1 C 15 3.2667 1.38701
-2.104 .041 E 36 4.0278 1.08196
S4D1 C 15 3.8667 1.35576
-.762 .456 E 36 4.1389 1.09942
S5D1 C 15 4.6667 .89974
1.285 .205 E 36 4.3056 .92023
S6D1 C 15 2.5333 .99043
-2.923 .005 E 36 3.5000 1.10841
S7D1 C 15 4.2000 .94112
-.575 .568 E 36 4.3611 .89929
244
Appendix C3 – Owner and Engineer –t Test CSF’s on CDF’s
DELAY 1
OED1SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 19 3.6316 1.46099
-1.333 .189 E 30 4.0667 .82768
S2D1 O 19 3.3158 1.41628
-1.176 .246 E 30 3.7000 .87691
S3D1 O 19 3.3684 1.42246
.005 .996 E 30 3.3667 .92786
S4D1 O 19 3.4737 1.54087
-3.937 .000 E 30 4.7000 .59596
S5D1 O 19 3.6842 1.45498
-3.414 .001 E 30 4.7000 .59596
S6D1 O 19 2.9474 1.31122
-.608 .546 E 30 3.1667 1.17688
S7D1 O 19 3.3684 1.34208
-1.048 .300 E 30 3.7000 .87691
O: Owners, E: engineers CSF: critical success factors CDF : critical delay factors S!D!: influence of success factor 1 on delay factor 1 and so on for all success factors on each delay factor
DELAY 2
OED2SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-2.969 .004 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S2D1 O 17 3.1762 1.23669
-1.989 .052 E 38 3.9211 1.30242
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
-.747 .458 E 38 3.2105 1.59658
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-2.972 .004 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 1.15999
-.723 .473 E 38 4.1579 .91611
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
- .937 .353 E 38 3.1316 1.43642
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.376 .021 E 38 3.6842 1.41622
245
DELAY 3
OED3SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-4.739 .000 E 32 4.5625 .61892
S2D1 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
-2.483 .017 E 32 4.0938 1.22762
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
-.700 .488 E 32 3.1563 1.32249
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-2.277 .027 E 32 4.0625 1.10534
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 1.24853
-1.487 .144 E 32 4.3750 .79312
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.360 .022 E 32 3.5313 1.07716
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-6.397 .000 E 32 4.4688 .76134
DELAY 4
OED4SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-.424 .673 E 32 3.4063 1.34066
S2D1 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
-3.439 .001 E 32 4.2188 .87009
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
.187 .852 E 32 2.8125 1.22967
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
1.330 .190 E 32 2.8125 1.22967
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 124853
-1.044 .302 E 32 4.2813 .99139
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-4.735 .000 E 32 4.2813 1.05446
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.925 .005 E 32 3.7188 1.08462
246
DELAY 5
OED5SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
.030 .977 E 36 3.2222 1.56955
S2D1 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
.222 .825 E 36 3.0833 1.50000
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
-.163 .871 E 36 2.9444 1.30809
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-.986 .329 E 36 3.6944 1.47007
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 1.24853
-1.261 .213 E 36 4.3333 .95618
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-.247 .806 E 36 2.8611 1.41730
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.319 .024 E 36 3.6667 1.41421
DELAY 6
OED6SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-2.663 .010 E 36 4.1667 1.10841
S2D1 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
-1.773 .082 E 36 3.8056 1.19090
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
.271 .788 E 36 2.7778 1.33333
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-.726 .471 E 36 3.5556 1.25230
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 1.24853
-.248 .805 E 36 4.0278 1.15847
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-.035 .972 E 36 2.7778 1.35459
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.611 .012 E 36 3.6944 1.26083
247
DELAY7 OED7SF N Mean St.D t Sig
S1D1 O 17 3.2353 1.34766
-3.672 .001 E 36 4.3611 .86694
S2D1 O 17 3.1765 1.23669
-1.570 .123 E 36 3.6944 1.06421
S3D1 O 17 2.8824 1.26897
-3.403 .001 E 36 4.0278 1.08196
S4D1 O 17 3.2941 1.15999
-2.566 .013 E 36 4.1389 1.09942
S5D1 O 17 3.9412 1.24853
-1.197 .237 E 36 4.3056 .92023
S6D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-2.265 .028 E 36 3.5000 1.10841
S7D1 O 17 2.7647 1.09141
-5.629 .000 E 36 4.3611 .89929
248
APPENDIX D – ONE-WAY ANOVA RESULT
Appendix D1 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners
Delay 1 Delay 2 Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St,D n Sort R
S1 3.6316 1.46099 19 3.6842 5 S1 3.2353 1.34766 17 3.9412 5 S2 3.3158 1.41628 19 3.6316 1 S2 3.1765 1.23669 17 3.2941 4 S3 3.3684 1.42246 19 3.4737 4 S3 2.8824 1.26897 17 3.2353 1 S4 3.4737 1.54087 19 3.3684 7 S4 3.2941 1.15999 17 3.1765 2 S5 3.6842 1.45498 19 3.3684 3 S5 3.9412 1.24853 17 2.9412 7 S6 2.9474 1.31122 19 3.3158 2 S6 2.7647 1.09141 17 2.8824 3 S7 3.3684 1.34208 19 2.9474 6 S7 2.9412 1.29762 17 2.7647 6
Delay 3 Delay 4 Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 3.4000 1.35225 15 3.4667 5 S1 3.6111 1.46082 18 3.7222 7 S2 2.9333 1.27988 15 3.4000 1 S2 3.2222 1.47750 18 3.6111 1 S3 3.1333 1.30201 15 3.4000 4 S3 3.2778 1.44733 18 3.5000 6
S4 3.4000 1.35225 15 3.2000 7 S4 3.5000 1.46528 18 3.2778 3
S5 3.4667 1.45733 15 3.1333 3 S5 3.0000 1.49509 18 3.2222 2
S6 2.7333 1.22280 15 2.9333 2 S6 3.0000 1.49509 18 3.0000 5
S7 3.2000 1.32017 15 2.7333 6 S7 3.7222 1.27443 18 3.0000 6
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 3.1250 1.50000 16 3.6250 5 S1 3.0000 1.35873 14 3.2143 4
S2 3.0000 1.41421 16 3.3750 4 S2 3.0714 1.32806 14 3.0714 2
S3 2.9375 1.52616 16 3.1250 1 S3 2.9286 1.26881 14 3.0714 5
S4 3.3750 1.36015 16 3.0000 2 S4 3.2143 1.42389 14 3.0000 1
S5 3.6250 1.36015 16 3.0000 7 S5 3.0714 1.32806 14 2.9286 3
S6 2.7500 1.41412 16 2.9375 3 S6 2.7143 1.38278 14 2.7143 6
S7 3.0000 1.41259 16 2.7500 6 S7 2.6429 1.27745 14 2.6429 7
Delay 7
Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 3.5882 1.27764 17 3.7647 5
S2 2.9412 1.51948 17 3.5882 1
S3 3.5294 1.32842 17 3.5294 3
S4 3.5294 1.46277 17 3.5294 4
S5 3.7647 1.25147 17 3.4118 7
S6 2.7059 1.35852 17 2.9412 2
S7 3.4118 1.32565 17 2.7059 6
249
Appendix D2 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Owners
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Highest
S 5 5** 5 7 5 4 5 S 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 S 4 1 4 6 1 5 3 S 7 2 7 3 2 1 4 S 3 7 3 2 7 3 7 S 2 3* 2 5 3 6 2 S 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 Least
S1 : Organisation planning effort S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 :Clarity of project scope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Appendix D3 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners (Post – Hoc)
Delay
(I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I – J) (p)
D2
3 5 -1.05882 .014
5 6 1.17647 .007
5 7 1.00000 .020
D7 5 6 1.05882 .026
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
250
Appendix D4 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors
Delay 1 Delay 2 Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St,D n Sort R
S1 3.9259 1.4122. 27 4.4074 5 S1 3.9259 1.41220 27 4.4074 5 S2 3.4815 1.18874 27 3.9259 1 S2 3.4815 1.18874 27 3.9259 1 S3 3.2222 .93370 27 3.8519 4 S3 3.2222 .93370 27 3.8519 4 S4 3.8519 1.37851 27 3.6296 7 S4 3.8519 1.37851 27 3.6296 7 S5 4.4074 .88835 27 3.4815 2 S5 4.4074 .88835 27 3.4815 2 S6 2.7778 80064 27 3.2222 3 S6 2.7778 .80064 27 3.2222 3 S7 3.6296 1.07946 27 2.7778 6 S7 3.6296 1.07946 27 2.7778 6
Delay 3 Delay 4 Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 4.2000 1.00525 20 4.3500 5 S1 4.1250 .95743 16 4.2500 5 S2 4.0000 1.29777 20 4.2000 1 S2 3.0625 1.38894 16 4.1250 1 S3 3.7500 1.16416 20 4.0000 2 S3 3.1250 1.31022 16 3.8125 7 S4 3.7500 1.16416 20 4.0000 7 S4 3.6875 1.01448 16 3.6875 4 S5 4.3500 .98809 20 3.7500 4 S5 4.2500 1.12546 16 3.1250 3 S6 3.0000 1.02598 20 3.7500 3 S6 2.6250 .95743 16 3.0625 2 S7 4.0000 1.21395 20 3.0000 6 S7 3.8125 .91059 16 2.6250 6
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort RS1 3.6000 1.39170 20 4.1000 5 S1 4.4211 1.01739 19 4.4211 1 S2 3.4000 1.14248 20 3.8000 7 S2 4.1579 .89834 19 4.3684 5 S3 3.2500 1.25132 20 3.6000 1 S3 3.2632 .87191 19 4.1579 2 S4 3.4500 1.19097 20 3.4500 4 S4 4.1579 .89834 19 4.1579 4 S5 4.1000 1.25237 20 3.4000 2 S5 4.3684 .76089 19 4.0000 7 S6 2.7500 1.25132 20 3.2500 3 S6 3.0000 1.05409 19 3.2632 3 S7 3.8000 1.39925 20 2.7500 6 S7 4.0000 .88192 19 3.0000 6
Delay 7 Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 4.6667 .61721 15 4.6667 1 S2 3.8000 1.37321 15 4.6667 5 S3 3.2667 1.38701 15 4.2000 7 S4 3.8667 1.35576 15 3.8667 4 S5 4.6667 .89974 15 3.8000 2 S6 2.5333 .99043 15 3.2667 3 S7 4.2000 .94112 15 2.5333 6
251
Appendix D5 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Contractors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Highest
S 5 5 5 5 1 1 S 1 1 1 7 5 5 S 4 2 7 1 2 7 S 7 7 4 4 4 4 S 2 4 3 2 7 2 S 3 3 2 3 3 3 S 6 6 6 6 6 6 Least
S1 : Organisation planning effort S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 :Clarity of project scope and definition S5 : Project manager’s capability and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2 : Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Contractor’s inadequate planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Appendix D6 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractors (Post – Hoc)
Delay (I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I –
J) (p)
D1 1 3 1.00000 .043
3 5 -1.23529 .013
5 6 1.17647 .018
D2 1 3 .70370 .022
1 6 1.14815 .000
2 5 - .92593 .003
2 6 .70370 .022
3 4 -.62963 .040
4 6 1.07407 .001
5 6 1.62963 .000
5 7 .77778 .012
6 7 - .85185 .006
D3 1 6 1.20000 .001
2 6 1.00000 .006
3 6 .75000 .037
4 6 .75000 .037
5 6 1.35000 .000
6 7 -1.00000 .006
D4 1 2 1.06250 .008
1 3 1.00000 .012
1 6 1.500000 .000
2 5 -1.18750 .003
3 5 -1.23500 .005
4 6 1.06250 .008
252
5 6 1.62500 .000
6 7 -1.18750 .003
D5 1 6 .85000 .036
3 5 -.85000 .036
5 6 1.35000 .001
6 7 -1.50000 .010
*The mean difference is significant at the o,o5 level
Appendix D7 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers
Delay 1 Delay 2
Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St,D n Sort R
S1 4.0667 .82768 30 4.7000 5 S1 4.1579 .91611 38 4.1579 1
S2 3.7000 .87691 30 4.3667 4 S2 3.9211 1.30242 38 4.1579 4
S3 3.3667 .92786 30 4.0667 1 S3 3.2015 1.59658 38 4.1579 5
S4 4.3667 .99943 30 3.7000 2 S4 4.1579 .91611 38 3.9211 2
S5 4.7000 .59596 30 3.7000 7 S5 4.1579 .91611 38 3.6842 7
S6 3.1667 1.17688 30 3.3667 3 S6 3.1316 1.43642 38 3.2015 3
S7 3.7000 .87691 30 3.1667 6 S7 3.6842 1.41622 38 3.1316 6
Delay 3 Delay 4
Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 4.5625 .61892 32 4.5625 1 S1 3.4063 1.34066 32 4.2813 5
S2 4.0938 1.22762 32 4.4688 7 S2 4.2188 .87009 32 4.2813 6
S3 3.1563 1.32249 32 4.3750 5 S3 2.8125 1.22967 32 4.2188 2
S4 4.0625 1.10534 32 4.0938 2 S4 2.8125 1.22967 32 3.7188 7
S5 4.3750 .79312 32 4.0625 4 S5 4.2813 .99139 32 3.4063 1
S6 3.5313 1.07716 32 3.5313 6 S6 4.2813 1.05446 32 2.8125 3
S7 4.4688 .76134 32 3.1563 3 S7 3.7188 1.08462 32 2.8125 4
Delay 5 Delay 6
Mean St.D n Sort R Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 3.2222 1.56955 36 4.3333 5 S1 4.1667 1.10841 36 4.1667 1
S2 3.0833 1.50000 36 3.6944 4 S2 3.8056 1.19090 36 4.0278 5
S3 2.9444 1.30809 36 3.6667 7 S3 2.7778 1.33333 36 3.8056 2
S4 3.6944 1.47007 36 3.2222 1 S4 3.5556 1.25230 36 3.6944 7
S5 4.3333 .95618 36 3.0833 2 S5 4.0278 1.15847 36 3.5556 4
S6 2.8611 1.41730 36 2.9444 3 S6 2.7778 1.35459 36 2.7778 3
S7 3.6667 1.41421 36 2.8611 6 S7 3.6944 1.26083 36 2.7778 6
253
Delay 7
Mean St.D n Sort R
S1 4.3611 .86694 36 4.3611 1
S2 3.6944 1.06421 36 4.3611 7
S3 4.0278 1.08196 36 4.3056 5
S4 4.1389 1.09942 36 4.1389 4
S5 4.3056 .92023 36 4.0278 3
S6 3.5000 1.10841 36 3.6944 2
S7 4.3611 .89929 36 3.5000 6
Appendix D8 – One-Way ANOVA Summary Results for Engineers
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
Highest
S 5 1 1 5 5 1 1
S 4 4 7 6 4 5 7
S 1 5 5 2 7 2 5
S 2 2 2 7 1 7 4
S 7 7 4 1 2 4 3
S 3 3 6 3 3 3 2
S 6 6 3 4 6 6 6
S1 : Organisation planning effort
S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment
S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal
orientation
S4 :Clarity of project scope and definition
S5 : Project manager’s capability and
experience
S6 : Safety precautions and applied
procedures
S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between
parties
D2 : Slow decision making
D3 : Change orders
D4 : Inadequate contractor’s planning
D5 : Finance and payment of completed
work
D6 : Subcontractors
D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
254
Appendix D9 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineers (Post – Hoc)
Delay (I) Success Factor (J) Success Factor Mean Difference (I – J) (p)
D1 1 3 .70000 .003
1 5 -.63333 .008
1 6 .90000 .000
2 4 -.66667 .005
2 5 -1.00000 .000
2 6 .53333 .025
3 4 -1.00000 .000
3 5 -1.33333 .000
4 6 1.20000 .000
4 7 .66667 .005
5 6 1.53333 .000
5 7 1.00000 .000
6 7 -.53333 .025
D2 1 3 .94737 .001
1 6 1.02362 .000
2 3 .71053 .013
2 6 .78947 .006
3 4 -.94737 .001
3 5 -.94737 .001
4 6 1.02632 .000
5 6 1.02632 .000
D3 1 3 1.40625 .000
1 6 1.03125 .000
2 3 .93750 .000
2 6 1.03125 .028
3 4 -.90625 .000
3 5 -1.21875 .000
3 7 -.37500 .000
4 6 .53125 .038
5 6 .84375 .001
6 7 -.93750 .000
D4 1 2 -.81250 .004
1 3 .59375 .036
1 4 .59375 .036
1 5 -.87500 .002
1 6 -.87500 .002
255
2 3 1.40625 .000
2 4 .59375 .036
3 5 -1/46875 .000
3 6 -1.46875 .000
3 7 -.90625 .001
4 5 -1.46875 .000
4 6 -1.46875 .000
4 7 -.90625 .001
5 7 .56250 .047
6 7 .56250 .047
D5 1 5 -1.11111 .001
2 5 -1.25000 .000
3 4 -.75000 .023.
3 5 -1.38889 .000
3 7 -.72222 .028
4 6 .83333 .012
5 6 1.47222 .000
5 7 ..6667 .043
6 7 -.80556 .015
D6 1 3 1.38889 .000
1 4 .61111 .038
1 6 1.38889 .000
2 3 1.02778 .001
2 6 1.02778 .001
3 4 -.77778 .008
3 5 -1.25000 .000
3 7 -.91667 .002
4 6 .7778 .008
5 6 1.25000 .000
6 7 -.91667 .002
D7 1 2 .66667 .006
1 6 .86111 .000
2 5 -.61111 .000
2 7 -.66667 .006
3 6 .52778. .028
4 6 .63889 .008
5 6 .80556 .001
6 7 -.86111 .000
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
256
APPENDIX E – TWO-WAY ANOVA
Appendix E1 – Two-way ANOVA-Owner and Contractor
Delay 1
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.6316 1.46099 3.5882 1.50245 3.6099 5 2 3.3158 1.41628 3.0588 1.34493 3.1873 1 3 3.3684 1.42246 2.5882 1.32565 2.9783 4 4 3.4737 1.54087 3.4118 1.46026 3.4428 7 5 3.6842 1.45498 3.8235 1.46779 3.7539 2 6 2.9474 1.31122 2.6471 1.53872 2.7973 3 7 3.3684 1.34208 3.3529 1.32009 3.3607 6 M 3.3985 3.2101
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effext)
Delay 2
Owner n = 17
Contractor n= 27
Marginal mean owner +
contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.2353 1.34766 3.9259 1.41220 3.5806 5 2 3.1765 1.23669 3.4815 1.18874 3.3290 1 3 2.8824 1.26897 3.2222 .93370 3.0523 4 4 3.2941 1.15999 3.8519 1.37851 3.5730 2 5 3.9412 1.24853 4.4074 .88835 4.1743 7 6 2.7647 1.09141 2.7778 .80064 2.7713 3 7 2.9412 1.29762 3.6296 1.07946 3.2854 6 M 3.1765 3.6138
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 3
Owner n =15 Contractor n= 20 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.4000 1.35225 4.2000 1.00525 3.8000 5 2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0000 1.29777 3.4667 1 3 3.1333 1.30201 3.7500 1.16416 3.4417 7 4 3.4000 1.35225 3.7500 1.16416 3.5750 4 5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3500 .98809 3.9084 2 6 2.7333 1.22280 3.0000 1.02598 2.8667 3 7 3.2000 1.32017 4.0000 1.21395 3.6000 6 M 3.1810 3.8643
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
257
Delay 4
Owner n = 18
Contractor n= 16
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.6111 1.46082 4.1250 .95743 3.8681 1 2 3.2222 1.47750 3.0625 1.38894 3.1423 7 3 3.2778 1.44733 3.1250 1.31022 3.2014 5 4 3.5000 1.46528 3.6875 1.01448 3.5938 4 5 3.0000 1.49509 4.2500 1.12546 3.6250 3 6 3.0000 1.49509 2.6250 .95743 2.8125 2 7 3.7222 1.27443 3.8125 .91059 3.7674 6 M 3.3333 3.5268
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 5
Owner n = 16 Contractor n= 20 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.1250 1.50000 3.6000 1.39170 3.3625 5 2 3.0000 1.41421 3.4000 1.14248 3.2000 4 3 2.9375 1.52616 3.2500 1.25132 3.0938 7 4 3.3750 1.36015 3.4500 1.19097 3.4125 1 5 3.6250 1.36015 4.1000 1.25237 3.8625 2 6 2.7500 1.39044 2.7500 1.25132 2.7500 3 7 3.0000 1.41421 3.8000 1.39925 3.4000 6 M 3.1161 3.4786
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 6
Owner n = 14
Contractor n=
Marginal mean owner +
contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.35873 4.4211 1.01739 3.7106 5 2 3.0714 1.32806 4.1579 .89834 3.6147 1 3 2.9286 1.26881 3.2632 .87191 3.0959 4 4 3.2143 1.42389 4.1579 .89834 3.6861 2 5 3.0714 1.32806 4.3684 .76089 3.7199 7 6 2.7143 1.38278 3.0000 1.05409 2.8572 3 7 2.6429 1.27745 4.0000 .88192 3.3215 6 M 2.9490 3.9098
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
258
Delay 7
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 15 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.5882 1.27764 4.6667 .61721 4.1275 5 2 2.9412 1.51948 3.8000 1.37321 3.3706 1 3 3.5294 1.32842 3.2667 1.38701 3.3981 7 4 3.5294 1.46277 3.8667 1.35576 3.6981 4 5 3.7647 1.25147 4.6667 .89974 4.2157 3 6 2.7059 1.35852 2.5333 .99043 2.6196 2 7 3.4118 1.32565 4.2000 .94112 3.8059 6 M 3.3529 3.8571
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Appendix E2 – Owners and Contractors – Main effects – Calculation
Delay 1
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 24.940 6 4.157 2.050 .060
SF X G 4.861 6 .810 .399 .879
Error 482.687 238 2.028
Group 2.230 1 2.230 1.099 .295
Error SF: success factors, SFXG: Success factors by group(interaction, SS: Sum of squares, df: degree of freedom, MS: Mean square
Delay 2 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 49.919 6 8.320 6.116 .111 SF X G 3.647 6 .608 .447 .009 Error 399.913 294 1.360 Group 13.963 1 13.963 10.265 .002 Error
Delay 3
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 23.122 6 3.854 2.602 .019
SF X G 4.314 6 .719 .485 .819
Error 342.183 231 1.481
Group 28.017 1 28.017 18.913 .000
Error
259
Delay 4
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 44.414 6 7.402 5.909 .000
SF X G 57.259 6 9.543 7.617 .000
Error 403.406 322 1.253
Group 1.085 1 1.065 .866 .353
Error
Delay 5 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 24.816 6 4.136 2.299 .035
SF X G 3.864 6 .644 .358 .905 Error 428.238 238 1.799 Group 8.176 1 8.176 4.544 .034 Error
Delay 6
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 23.022 6 3.837 3.095 .006
SF X G 10.849 6 1.808 1.459 .194
Error 269.004 217 1.240
Group 52.087 1 52.087 42.017 .000
Error
Delay 7
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 32.531 6 5.422 3.595 .002
SF X G 22.285 6 3.714 2.462 .026
Error 285.081 189 1.508
Group 41.807 1 41.807 27.717 .000
Error
260
Appendix E3 – Owners and Contractors – Post Hoc
Delay 1 Delay 2 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 .8056 .017 1 3 .5682 .023 5 3 .7506 .026 1 5 -.5682 .023 5 6 .9444 .005 1 6 .8864 .000 2 5 -.8636 .001 2 6 .5909 .018 3 4 -.5455 .029 3 5 -1.1364 .000 4 5 -.5909 .018 4 6 .8636 .001 5 6 1.4545 .000 5 7 .8636 .001 6 7 -.5909 .018
Delay 3 Delay 4 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 .9714 .001 1 3 .7292 .002 2 6 .6571 .025 1 4 .5417 .018 3 6 .6000 .040 1 5 -.6250 .007 4 6 .7143 .015 2 3 .9167 .000 5 6 1.0857 .000 2 4 .7292 .002 6 7 -.7714 .009 2 5 -.4375 .056 3 5 -1.3542 .000 3 6 -.8125 .000 3 7 -.8333 .000 4 5 -1.1667 .000 4 6 -.6250 .007 4 7 -.6458 .005 5 6 .5417 .018 5 7 .5208 .023
Delay 5 Delay 6 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 .6389 .044 1 3 .6970 .012 2 5 -.6667 .036 1 6 .9394 .001 3 5 -.7778 .015 2 3 .5758 .037 4 6 .6667 .036 2 6 .8182 .003 5 6 1.1389 .000 3 4 -.0606 .021 6 7 -.6944 .029 3 5 -.6970 .012 4 6 .8788 .002 5 6 .9394 .001 6 7 -.5455 .048
Delay 7
(I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) 1 3 .7586 .020 1 6 1.2414 .000 2 6 -.8276 .011 3 5 -.7931 .015 4 6 .9310 .004 5 6 1.2759 .000 6 7 -.8276 .011
261
Appendix E4 – Contractor and Engineer
Delay 1
Contractor n = 17 Engineer n= 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.5882 1.50245 4.0667 .82768 3.8275 4 2 3.0588 1.34493 3.7000 .87691 3.3794 1 3 2.5882 1.32565 3.3667 .92786 2.9775 7 4 3.4118 1.46026 4.3667 .99943 3.8893 2 5 3.8235 1.46779 4.7000 .59596 2.8586 3 6 2.6471 1.53872 3.1667 1.17688 2.9069 6 7 3.3529 1.32009 3.7000 .87691 3.5265 5 M 3.2101 3.8667
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 2
Contractor n = 27Engineer n= 38
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor
Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.9259 1.41220 4.1579 .91611 4.0419 5 2 3.4815 1.18874 3.9211 1.30242 3.7013 1 3 3.2222 .93370 3.2105 1.59658 3.2163 4 4 3.8519 1.37851 4.1579 .91611 4.0049 2 5 4.4074 .88835 4.1579 .91611 4,2827 7 6 2.7778 .80064 3.1316 1.43642 2.9569 3 7 3.6296 1.07946 3.6842 1.42622 3.6569 6 M 3.6138 3.7744
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 3
Contractor n = 20 Engineer n= 32 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 4.2000 1.00525 4.5625 .61892 4.3813 1
2 4.0000 1.29777 4.0938 .22762 4.0469 5
3 3.7500 1.16416 3.1563 1.32249 3.4532 7
4 3.7500 1.16416 4.0625 1.10534 3.9063 2
5 4.3500 .98809 4.3750 .79312 4.3625 4
6 3.0000 1.02598 3.5313 1.07716 3.2657 3
7 4.0000 1.21395 4.4688 .76134 4.2344 6
M 3.8643 4.0357
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
262
Delay 4
Contractor n = 16 Engineer n= 32 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 4.1250 .95743 3.4063 1.34066 3.7657 5 2 3.0625 1.38894 4.2188 .87009 3.6407 1 3 3.1250 1.31022 2.8125 1.22967 2.9688 7 4 3.6875 1.01448 2.8125 1.22967 3.2500 2 5 4.2500 1.12546 4.2813 .99139 4.2657 6 6 2.6250 .95743 4.2813 1.05446 3.4532 4 7 3.8125 .91059 3.7188 1.08462 3.7657 3 M 3.5268 3.6473
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 5
Contractor n = 20 Engineer n= 36 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.6000 1.39170 3.2222 1.56955 3.4111 5 2 3.4000 1.14248 3.0833 1.50000 3.2417 7 3 3.2500 1.25132 2.9444 1.30809 3.0972 4 4 3.4500 1.19097 3.6944 1.47007 3.5722 1 5 4.1000 1.25237 4.3333 .95618 4.2167 2 6 2.7500 1.25132 2.8611 1.41730 2.8056 3 7 3.8000 1.39925 3.6667 1.41421 3.7334 6 M 3.4786 3.4008
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 6
Contractor n = Engineer n= 36 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 4.4211 1.01739 4.1667 1.10841 4.2939 1 2 4.1579 .89834 3.8056 1.19090 3.9818 5 3 3.2632 .87191 2.7778 1.33333 3.0206 2 4 4.1579 .89834 3.5556 1.25230 3.6568 7 5 4.3684 .76089 4.0278 1.15847 4.1981 4 6 3.0000 1.05409 2.7778 1.35459 2.8889 3 7 4.0000 .88192 3.6944 1.26083 3.8472 6 M 3.9098 3.5437
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
263
Delay 7
Contractor n = 15 Engineer n= 36 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 4.6667 .61721 4.3611 .86694 4.5139 5 2 3.8000 1.37321 3.6944 1.06421 3.7472 1 3 3.2667 1.38701 4.0278 1.08196 3.6473 7 4 3.8667 1.35576 4.1389 1.09942 4.0028 4 5 4.6667 .89974 4.3056 .92023 4.4862 2 6 2.5333 .99043 3.5000 1.10841 3.0167 3 7 4.2000 .94112 4.3611 .89929 4.2806 6 M 3.8571 4.0556
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Appendix E5 – Contractors and Engineers – Main effects – Calculation
Delay 1 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 63.752 6 10.625 8.444 .000 SF X G 3.242 1 .540 .429 .859 Error 396.396 315 1.258 Group 32.745 1 32.745 26.021 .000 Error
SF: success factors, SFXG: Success factors by group(interaction, SS: Sum of squares, df: degree of freedom, MS: Mean square
Delay 2
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 84.627 6 14.105 9.890 .000
SF X G 5.533 6 .922 .647 .693
Error 628.938 441 1.426
Group 2.853 1 2.853 2.000 .158
Error
Delay 3
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 46.343 6 7.724 6.070 .000
SF X G .000 6 .000 .000 1.000
Error 338.500 266 1.273
Group .000 1 .000 .000 .000
Error
264
Delay 4
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 44.414 6 7.402 5.909 .000
SF X G 57.259 6 9.543 7.617 .000
Error 403.406 322 1.253
Group 1.085 1 1.085 .866 .353
Error
Delay 5
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 65.156 6 10.859 5.968 .000
SF X G 5.636 6 .939 .516 .796
Error 687.856 378 1.820
Group .544 1 .544 .299 .585
Error
Delay 6 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 91.584 6 15.264 11.740 .000 SF X G 1.340 6 .223 .172 .984 Error 482.373 371 1.300 Group 11.669 1 11.669 8.975 .003
Error
Delay 7
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 72.892 6 12.149 11.201 .000
SF X G 16.657 6 2.776 2.559 .019
Error 372.033 343 1.085
Group 2.918 1 2.918 2.690 .102
Error
265
Appendix E6 – Contractors and Engineers – Post Hoc
Delay 1 Delay 2 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 3 .8085 .001 1 3 .8462 .000 1 5 -.4894 .035 1 6 1.0769 .000 1 6 .9149 .000 2 3 .5231 .013 2 4 -.5332 .017 2 5 -.5231 .013 2 5 -.9149 .000 2 6 .7358 .000 2 6 -.4894 .035 3 4 -.8154 .000 3 4 -.9632 .000 3 5 -1.0642 .000 3 5 -1.2979 .000 3 7 -.4462 .034 3 7 -.4894 .035 4 6 1.0462 .000 4 6 1.0426 .000 5 7 .6000 .004 5 6 1.4043 .000 6 7 -.6769 .001 5 7 .8085 .001 6 7 -.5957 .010
Delay 3 Delay 4 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 1.2000 .000 1 3 .7292 .002 2 6 1.0000 .000 1 4 .5417 .018 3 5 -.6000 .018 1 5 -.6250 .007 3 6 .7500 .003 2 3 .9167 .000 4 5 -.6000 .018 2 4 .7292 .002 4 6 .7500 .003 3 5 -1.3542 .000 5 6 .7500 .000 3 6 -.8125 .000 6 7 -1.000 .000 3 7 -.8333 .000 4 5 -1.667 .000 4 6 -.6350 .000 4 7 -.6458 .000 5 6 .5417 .018 5 7 .5208 .023
Delay 5 Delay6
(I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 5 -.8929 .001 1 3 1.3091 .000
1 6 .5357 .036 1 4 .4909 .025
2 5 -1.0536 .000 1 6 1.4000 .000
2 7 -.5179 .043 1 7 .4545 .037
3 4 -.5536 .031 2 3 .9818 .000
3 5 -1.1964 .000 2 6 1.0727 .000
3 7 -.5179 .043 3 4 -.8182 .000
4 5 -.6429 .012 3 5 -1.2000 .000
4 6 .7857 .002 3 7 -.8545 .000
5 6 1.4286 .000 4 5 -.3818 .080
266
5 7 .5357 .036 4 6 .9091 .000
6 7 -.8929 .001 5 6 1.2909 .000
6 7 -.9545 .000
Delay 7
(I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p)
1 2 .7255 .000
1 3 .6471 .002
1 6 1.2353 .000
2 5 -.6863 .001
2 6 .5098 .014
2 7 -.5882 .005
3 5 -.6078 .003
3 6 .5882 .005
3 7 -.5098 .014
4 6. .8431 .000
5 6 1.1961 .000
6 7 -1.0980 .000
Appendix E7 – Owner and Engineer
Delay 1
Owner n = 19 Engineer n = 30 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.6316 1.4609
9 4.066
7 .82768 3.8492 5
2 3.3158 1.4162
8 3.700
0 .87691 3.5079 4
3 3.3684 1.4224
6 3.366
7 .92786 3.3676 1
4 3.4737 1.5408
7 4.366
7 .99943 3.9202 7
5 3.6842 1.4549
8 4.700
0 .59596 4,1921 2
6 2.9474 1.3112
2 3.166
7 1.1768
8 3.0571 3
7 3.3684 1.3420
8 3.700
0 .87691 3.5342 6
M 3.3985 3.866
7
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
267
Delay 2
Owner n = 17 Engineer n = 38 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M
1 3.2353 1.3476
6 4.1579 .91611 3.6966 5
2 3.1765 1.2366
9 3.9211 1.30242 3.5488 4
3 2.8824 1.2689
7 3.2105 1.59658 3.0465 1
4 3.2941 1.1599
9 4.1579 .91611 3.7260 2
5 3.9412 1.2485
3 4.1579 .91611 3.7260 7
6 2.7647 1.0914
1 3.1316 1.43642 2.9482 3
7 2.9412 1.2976
2 3.6842 1.42622 3.3127 6
M 3.1765 3.7744 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 3
Owner n =15 Engineer n= 32
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/2
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M 1 3.4000 1.35225 4.5625 .61892 3.9813 1 2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0938 1.22762 3.5136 5 3 3.1333 1.30201 3.1563 1.32249 3.1448 7 4 3.4000 1.35225 4.0625 1.10534 3.7313 4 5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3750 .79312 3.9209 2 6 2.7333 1.22280 3.5313 1.07716 3.1323 3 7 3.2000 1.32017 4.4688 .76134 3.8344 6 M 3.1810 4.0357
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 4
Owner n = 18 Engineer n= 32 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M 1 3.6111 1.46082 3.4063 1.34066 3.5087 2 2 3.2222 1.47750 4.2188 .87009 3.7205 7 3 3.2778 1.44733 2.8125 1.22967 3.0452 5 4 3.5000 1.46528 2.8125 1.22967 3.1563 6 5 3.0000 1.49509 4.2813 .99139 3.6407 1 6 3.0000 1.49509 4.2813 1.05446 3.6407 4 7 3.7222 1.27443 3.7188 1.08462 3.7205 3 M 3.3333 3.6473
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
268
Delay 5
Owner n = 16 Engineer n= 36 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.1250 1.50000 3.2222 1.56955 3.1736 5 2 3.0000 1.41421 3.0833 1.50000 3.0417 4 3 2.9375 1.52616 2.9444 1.30809 2.9410 7 4 3.3750 1.36015 3.6944 1.47007 3.5347 1 5 3.6250 1.36015 4.3333 .95618 3.9790 2 6 2.7500 1.39044 2.8611 1.41730 2.8056 3 7 3.0000 1.41421 3.6667 1.41421 3.3334 6 M 3.1161 3.4008
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 6
Owner n = 14 Engineer n= 36 Marginal mean
owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.3587
3 4.166
7 1.10841 3.5834 1
2 3.0714 1.3280
6 3.805
6 1.19090 3.4385 5
3 2.9286 1.2688
1 2.777
8 1.33333 2.8532 2
4 3.2143 1.4238
9 3.555
6 1.25230 3.3850 4
5 3.0714 1.3280
6 4.027
8 1.15847 3.5496 7
6 2.7143 1.3827
8 2.777
8 1.35459 2.7461 3
7 2.6429 1.2774
5 3.694
4 1.26083 3.1687 6
M 2.9490 3.543
7
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
269
Delay 7
Owner n = 17 Engineer n= 36 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/2
Sorting Highest to
Lowest
Success Factor Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.5882 1.27764 4.3611 .86694 3.9747 5 2 2.9412 1.51948 3.6944 1.06421 3.3178 1 3 3.5294 1.32842 4.0278 1.08196 3.7786 7 4 3.5294 1.46277 4.1389 1.09942 3.8342 4 5 3.7647 1.25147 4.3056 .92023 4.0352 3 6 2.7059 1.35852 3.5000 1.10841 3.1030 2 7 3.4118 1.32565 4.3611 .89929 3.8865 6 M 3.3529 4.0556
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Appendix E8 – Owners and Engineers – Main effects – Calculation
Delay 1 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 40.454 6 6.742 5.231 .000
SF X G 9.189 6 1.531 1.188 .312
Error 424.025 329 1.289
Group 17.848 1 17.848 13.848 .000
Error SF: success factors, SFXG: Success factors by group(interaction, SS: Sum of squares, df: degree of freedom, MS: Mean square
Delay 2 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 43.939 6 7.323 4.745 .000 SF X G 5.757 6 .959 .622 .713 Error 572.554 371 1.543 Group 29.398 1 29.398 19.049 .000
Error
Delay 3
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 23.122 6 3.854 2.602 .019
SF X G 4.314 6 .719 .485 .819
Error 342.183 231 1.481
Group 28.017 1 28.017 18.913 .000
Error
270
Delay 4 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 21.255 6 3.542 2,274 .036
SF X G 49.735 6 8.289 5.321 .000 Error 523.455 336 1.558 Group 7.950 1 7.950 5.103 .025 Error
Delay 5
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 42.600 6 7.100 3.623 .002
SF X G 5.644 6 .941 .480 .823
Error 685.993 350 1.960
Group 6.286 1 6.286 3.207 .074
Error
Delay 6
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 27.119 6 4.520 2.813 .011
SF X G 16.010 6 2.668 1.661 .130
Error 539.798 336 1.607
Group 24.952 1 24.952 15.532 .000
Error
Delay7 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 34.601 6 5.767 4.491 .000 SF X G 1.770 6 .295 .230 .967 Error 458.402 357 1.284 Group 39.903 1 39.903 31.076 .000
Error
271
Appendix E9 – Owner and Engineers – Post Hoc
Delay 1 Delay 2 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 3 .6515 .002 1 3 .7636 .001 1 6 .8485 .000 1 6 .8545 .000 2 4 -.4394 .038 2 3 .5818 .015 2 5 -.7576 .000 2 6 .6727 .005 2 6 .4545 .032 3 4 -.7818 .001 3 4 -.4394 .001 3 5 -9818 .000 3 5 -1.1052 .000 4 6 .8727 .000 4 6 .8939 .000 5 6 1.0727 .000 5 6 1.2121 .000 5 7 .6364 .008 5 7 .6667 .002 6 7 -.5455 .10
Delay 3 Delay 4 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 .9714 .001 1 3 .5000 .046 2 6 .6571 .025 2 3 .8800 .000 3 6 .6000 .040 2 4 .8000 .001 4 6 .7143 .015 3 5 -.8400 .001 5 6 1.0857 .000 3 6 -.8400 .001 6 7 -.7714 .009 3 7 -.7400 .003 4 5 -.7600 .003 4 6 -.7600 .003 4 7 -.6600 .009
Delay 5 Delay 6
(I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 5 -.9231 .001 1 3 1.0200 .000
2 5 -1.0577 .000 1 6 1.0800 .000
3 4 -.6538 .018 2 3 .7800 .002
3 5 -1.1731 .000 2 6 .8400 .001
4 6 .7692 .005 3 4 -.6400 .012
5 6 1.2885 .000 3 5 -.9400 .000
6 7 -.6346 .021 3 7 -.5800 .023
4 6 .7000 .006
5 6 1.0000 .000
6 7 -.6400 .012
272
Delay 7
(I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p)
1 2 .6604 .003
1 6 .8679 .000
2 4 -.4906 .026
2 5 -.6792 .002
2 7 -.6038 .006
3 6 .6226 .005
4 6 .6981 .002
5 6 .8868 .000
6 7 -.8113 .000
Appendix E10 – Owner, Contractor and Engineer
Delay 1
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.6316 1.46099 3.5882 1.50245 4.0667 .82768 3.7622 5 2 3.3158 1.41628 3.0588 1.34493 3.7000 .87691 3.3582 1 3 3.3684 1.42246 2.5882 1.32565 3.3667 .92786 3.1078 4 4 3.4737 1.54087 3.4118 1.46026 4.3667 .99943 3.7507 7 5 3.6842 1.45498 3.8235 1.46779 4.7000 .59596 4.0692 2 6 2.9474 1.31122 2.6471 1.53872 3.1667 1.17688 2.9204 3 7 3.3684 1.34208 3.3529 1.32009 3.7000 .87691 3.4738 6 M 3.3985 3.2101 3.8667 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 2
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30 Marginal
mean owner + contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.2353 1.34766 3.9259 1.41220 4.1579 .91611 3.7730 5 2 3.1765 1.23669 3.4815 1.18874 3.9211 1.30242 3.5264 4 3 2.8824 1.26897 3.2222 .93370 3.2105 1.59658 3.1050 1 4 3.2941 1.15999 3.8519 1.37851 4.1579 .91611 3.9531 2 5 3.9412 1.24853 4.4074 .88835 4.1579 .91611 4.1688 7 6 2.7647 1.09141 2.7778 .80064 3.1316 1.43642 2.8914 3 7 2.9412 1.29762 3.6296 1.07946 3.6842 1.42622 3.4183 6 M 3.1765 3.6138 3.7744 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
273
Delay 3
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.4000 1.35225 4.2000 1.00525 4.5625 .61892 4.0542 5
2 2.9333 1.27988 4.0000 1.29777 4.0938 1.22762 3.6757 1
3 3.1333 1.30201 3.7500 1.16416 3.1563 1.32249 3.3465 7
4 3.4000 1.35225 3.7500 1.16416 4.0625 1.10534 3.7375 4
5 3.4667 1.45733 4.3500 .98809 4.3750 .79312 4.0639 2
6 2.7333 1.22280 3.0000 1.02598 3.5313 1.07716 3.0882 3
7 3.2000 1.32017 4.0000 1.21395 4.4688 .76134 3.8896 6
M 3.1810 3.8643 4.0357
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 4
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.6111 1.46082 4.1250 .95743 3.4063 1.34066 3.7141 5
2 3.2222 1.47750 3.0625 1.38894 4.2188 .87009 3.5011 7
3 3.2778 1.44733 3.1250 1.31022 2.8125 1.22967 3.0718 1
4 3.5000 1.46528 3.6875 1.01448 2.8125 1.22967 3.3333 2
5 3.0000 1.49509 4.2500 1.12546 4.2813 .99139 3.8438 4
6 3.0000 1.49509 2.6250 .95743 4.2813 1.05446 3.3021 6
7 3.7222 1.27443 3.8125 .91059 3.7188 1.08462 3.7512 3
M 3.3333 3.5268 3.6473
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
274
Delay 5
Owner n = 19 Contractor n= 17 Engineer n = 30
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.1250 1.50000 3.6000 1.39170 3.2222 1.56955 3.3157 5
2 3.0000 1.41421 3.4000 1.14248 3.0833 1.50000 3.1611 4
3 2.9375 1.52616 3.2500 1.25132 2.9444 1.30809 3.0440 7
4 3.3750 1.36015 3.4500 1.19097 3.6944 1.47007 3.5064 1
5 3.6250 1.36015 4.1000 1.25237 4.3333 .95618 4.0194 2
6 2.7500 1.39044 2.7500 1.25132 2.8611 1.41730 2.7870 3
7 3.0000 1.41421 3.8000 1.39925 3.6667 1.41421 3.4889 6
M 3.1161 3.4786 3.4008
SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Delay 6
Owner n = 14 Contractor n= Engineer n =36
Marginal mean owner
+ contractor)/3
Sorting Highest
to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF
1 3.0000 1.35873 4.4211 1.01739 4.1667 1.10841 3.8626 1
2 3.0714 1.32806 4.1579 .89834 3.8056 1.19090 3.6783 5
3 2.9286 1.26881 3.2632 .87191 2.7778 1.33333 2.9899 2
4 3.2143 1.42389 4.1579 .89834 3.5556 1.25230 3.6426 4
5 3.0714 1.32806 4.3684 .76089 4.0278 1.15847 3.8225 7
6 2.7143 1.38278 3.0000 1.05409 2.7778 1.35459 2.8307 3
7 2.6429 1.27745 4.0000 .88192 3.6944 1.26083 3.4458 6
M 2.9490 3.9098 3.5437 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
275
Delay 7
Owner n = 17 Contractor n= 15 Engineer n = 36
Marginal mean owner + contractor)/3
Sorting Highest to Lowest
SF Mean St.D Mean St.D Mean St.D M SF 1 3.5882 1.27764 4.6667 .61721 4.3611 .86694 4.2053 5 2 2.9412 1.51948 3.8000 1.37321 3.6944 1.06421 3.4785 1 3 3.5294 1.32842 3.2667 1.38701 4.0278 1.08196 3.6080 7 4 3.5294 1.46277 3.8667 1.35576 4.1389 1.09942 3.7784 4 5 3.7647 1.25147 4.6667 .89974 4.3056 .92023 4.2457 3 6 2.7059 1.35852 2.5333 .99043 3.5000 1.10841 2.9131 2 7 3.4118 1.32565 4.2000 .94112 4.3611 .89929 3.9910 6 M 3.3529 3.8571 4.0556 SF : Success Factors, ST,D : Standard Deviation Marginal or (M0 : accumulative mean by raw (SF’s effect) or column (group effect)
Appendix E11 – Owners, Contractors and Engineers – Main effects – Calculation
Delay 1
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 60.031 6 10.005 6.772 .000
SF X G 11.782 12 .982 .665 .786
Error 651.554 441 1.477
Group 37.785 2 18.893 12.787 .000
Error SF: success factors, SFXG: Success factors by group(interaction, SS: Sum of squares, df: degree of freedom, MS: Mean square
Delay 2 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 82.816 6 13.803 9.533 .000 SF X G 10.204 12 .850 .587 .853 Error 800.702 553 1.448 Group 29.472 2 14.736 10.177 .000 Error
Delay 3
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 43.623 6 7.270 5.175 .000
SF X G 5.491 12 .458 .326 .984
Error 511.433 364 1.405
Group 35.658 2 17.829 12.689 .000
Error
276
Delay 4 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 28.777 6 4.796 3.241 .004 SF X G 87.164 12 7.264 4.909 .000 Error 652.517 441 1.480 Group 7.955 2 3.977 2.688 .069 Error
Delay 5
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 60.119 6 10.020 5.371 .000
SF X G 10.392 12 .866 .464 .935
Error 901.043 483 1.866
Group 9.051 2 4.526 2.426 .089
Error
Delay 6
Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p)
SF 58.763 6 9.794 7.009 .000
SF X G 17.858 12 1.488 1.065 .388
Error 645.587 462 1.397
Group 52.294 2 26.147 18.712 .000
Error
Delay 7 Source SS d.f MS F Sig (p) SF 48.959 6 8.160 6.673 .000 SF X G 29.172 12 2.431 1.988 .024 Error 529.513 433 1.223 Group 88.709 2 44.355 36.270 .000 Error
Appendix E12 – Owners, Contractors and Engineers – Post Hoc
Delay 1 Delay 2 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 3 .6515 .002 1 3 .7439 .000 1 6 .8485 .000 1 6 .9512 .000 2 4 -.4394 .038 1 7 .3780 .045 2 5 -.7576 .000 2 3 .4756 .012 2 6 .4545 .032 2 5 -.5732 .002 3 4 -.6970 .001 2 6 .6829 .000 3 5 -1.0572 .000 3 4 -.7317 .000 4 6 .8939 .000 3 5 -1.0488 .000 5 6 1.2121 .000 4 6 .9390 .000 5 7 .6667 .002 5 6 1.2561 .000 6 7 -.5455 .010 5 7 .6829 .000 6 7 -.5732 .002
277
Delay 3 Delay 4 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 6 1.0545 .000 1 3 .6212 .004 2 6 .7818 .001 1 4 .4242 .046 3 5 -.5237 .020 2 3 .6515 .002 3 6 .6545 .004 2 4 .4545 .032 4 5 -.4545 .045 3 5 -.9091 .000 4 6 .7273 .001 3 6 -.5152 .015 5 6 1.1818 .000 3 7 -.7273 .001 6 7 -.8545 .000 4 5 -.7121 .001 4 7 -.5303 .013
Delay 5 Delay 6 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p) (I) SF (J)SF Mean (I-J) Sig (p)
1 5 -.8056 .000 1 3 1.0580 .000 1 6 .5000 .029 1 6 1.1739 .000 2 5 -.9583 .000 1 7 .4348 .031 3 4 -.5278 .021 2 3 .8116 .000 3 5 -1.0833 .000 2 6 .9275 .000 3 7 -.5278 .021 3 4 -.7101 .000 4 5 -.5556 .015 3 5 -.9855 .000 4 6 .7500 .001 3 7 -.6232 .002 5 6 1.3056 .000 4 6 .8261 .000 5 7 .5556 .015 5 6 1.1014 .000 6 7 -.7500 .001 6 7 -.7391 .000
Delay 7 (I) SF (J) SF Mean ( I – J) Sig (p)
1 2 .5873 .003 1 3 .5565 .004 1 6 1.0642 .000 2 5 -.5385 .006 2 6 .4769 .014 3 5 -.5077 .009. 3 6 -.3385 .009 4 6 .7692 .000 5 6 1.0154 .000 6 7 -.8462 .000
278
APPENDIX F – Relative Importance of the Success Factors
Individual Overall Importance
Appendix F1 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Owners
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting
S 5 5 5 7 5 4 5 S1 38 S5
S 1 4 1 1 4 5 1 S2 22 S4
S 4 1 4 4 1 2 4 S3 21 S1
S 7 2 7 3 2 1 3 S4 39 S2
S 3 7 3 2 7 3 7 S5 43 S7
S 2 3 2 5 3 6 2 S6 8 S3
S 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 S7 22 S6
S1 : Organisational planning S2 : Project manager’s goal commitment S3 : Project team’s motivation and goal orientation S4 : Clarity of the project scope and work definition S5 : Project manager’s capabilities and experience S6 : Safety precautions and applied procedures S7 : Use of control system
D1 : Lack of communication between parties D2: Slow decision making D3 : Change orders D4 : Inadequate contractor planning D5 : Finance and payment of completed work D6 : Subcontractors D7 : Inadequate contractor experience
Appendix F2 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Contractor
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting S 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 S1 43 S5 S 1 1 1 1 7 5 5 S2 24 S1 S 4 4 2 7 1 2 7 S3 14 S7 S 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 S4 29 S4 S 2 2 3 3 2 7 2 S5 47 S2 S 6 3 4 2 3 3 3 S6 8 S3 S 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 S7 31 S6
Appendix F3 – One-Way ANOVA Results for Engineer
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting
S 5 1 1 5 5 1 1 S1 40 S5
S 4 4 7 6 4 5 7 S2 27 S1
S 1 5 5 2 7 2 5 S3 14 S7
S 2 2 2 7 1 7 4 S4 29 S4
S 7 7 4 1 2 4 3 S5 40 S2
S 3 3 6 3 3 3 2 S6 13 S3
S 6 6 3 4 6 6 6 S7 31 S6
279
Group Overall Importance
Appendix F4 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner and Contractor
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting
S 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 S1 41 S5
S 1 1 1 7 4 1 1 S2 21 S1
S 4 4 7 5 7 4 7 S3 16 S4
S 7 2 4 4 1 2 4 S4 33 S7
S 2 7 2 3 2 7 3 S5 47 S2
S 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 S6 7 S3
S 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 S7 31 S6
Appendix F5 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Contractor and Engineer
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting S 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 S1 41 S5 S 4 1 5 1 7 5 1 S2 26 S1 S 1 4 7 7 4 2 7 S3 13 S7 S 7 2 2 2 1 7 4 S4 28 S4 S 2 7 4 6 2 4 2 S5 47 S2 S 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 S6 8 S3 S 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 S7 32 S6
Appendix F6 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner and Engineer
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting
S 5 5 1 2 5 1 5 S1 37 S5
S 4 4 5 7 4 5 1 S2 27 S1
S 1 1 7 5 7 2 7 S3 14 S4
S 7 2 4 6 1 4 4 S4 32 S7
S 2 7 2 1 2 7 3 S5 45 S2
S 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 S6 10 S3
S 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 S7 31 S6
Appendix F7 – Two-Way ANOVA Results for Owner, Contractor and Engineer
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SF SF Importance Sorting S 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 S1 39 S5 S 1 4 1 7 4 5 1 S2 24 S1 S 4 1 7 1 7 2 7 S3 14 S7 S 7 2 4 2 1 4 4 S4 32 S4 S 2 7 2 4 2 7 3 S5 48 S2 S 3 3 3 6 3 3 2 S6 8 S3 S 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 S7 7 S6
280
APPENDIX G
Application to conduct research in Brunei Government Construction
Industry. (sample letter)
Date
Minister of Development Office
Old Airport
Brunei Darussalam
Dear Sir,
RE: Application to conduct research in several Brunei government
departments
My name is Rohaniyati Salleh. I am currently undertaking PhD in project
management in Queensland University of Technology. In accordance with
the protocol of Ministry of Development pertaining to conduct research in the
government departments, I wish to seek permission and approval to conduct
research with the government authority.
My area of interest is construction industry. The focus of this research
centres on failure factors of Building construction for public sectors under
Ministry of Development and to suggest some strategies to improve project
performance.
Your cooperation and kind consideration in this matter is highly appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if any issues in the application require
clarification
Yours Sincerely
281
LETTER TO STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE SURVEY ON THE LOCAL
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY OF BRUNEI
Dear participant,
The construction industry is one of a major contributor to the national
economy of many countries. The construction industry in Brunei is
characterized by severe problems and the researcher aim is to improve
efficiency, quality, and performance of the industry,
The survey’s main question is:
What are the real causes of project failures in Brunei construction
industry?
As a key stakeholder, you are invited to participate in a survey of the Brunei
Construction Industry. Your input will be important to provide us with an
understanding of the industry and key strategies to improve project success
in the future. This survey is carefully designed to take the shortest time
possible.
I value your participation and thank you for the commitment of time, energy
and effort, if you have any further questions, I can be reached at the address
below.
Sincerely
Rohaniyati Salleh
PhD candidate
Faculty of Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane Queensland 4001
Australia
Emails: [email protected]
INSTRUCTIONS – Please Review these instructions to be able to answer the
questions.
282
INSTRUCTIONS 1 – please, give your details by ticking one of the boxes
provided.
PARTICIPANTS DETAIL Frequency
Age
< 20 □
20 - 29 □
30 - 39 □
40 - 50 □
> 50 □
Sex
Male □
Female □
Education
Lower secondary □
Upper secondary □
Pre-university □
University □
Post Graduate □
Types of Organisation
Owners ( Govt / Developer)
□
Consultant/Engineers □
Contractors □
Occupational Level
Non-executive □
Executive □
Managerial □
Number of working experience
< 2 Years □
2 - 5 Years □
6 - 10 years □
> 10 years □
Field of specializations
Building □
Infrastructure □
Mechanical and electrical □
283
Others □
Largest project involve based on contract sum
< $10 million □
$10 million - $ 50 million □
> $ 50 million □
INSTRUCTION 2 – Please rank the delay factors below in what you consider
to be the most important factor of delays. The five point scale ranged from
1(not important), 2 (A small amount), 3 (A moderate amount), 4 (A good deal)
and 5 (extremely important
Causes of delays 1 2 3 4 5
Client related causes
Finance and payments of completed work
□ □ □ □ □
Owner Interference □ □ □ □ □
Slow decision making □ □ □ □ □
Unrealistic contract duration and requirements imposed
□ □ □ □ □
Contractor related causes
Subcontractors □ □ □ □ □
Site management □ □ □ □ □
Construction methods □ □ □ □ □
Inadequate planning □ □ □ □ □
Mistakes during construction stage
□ □ □ □ □
Inadequate experience of contractors
□ □ □ □ □
Consultant related causes
Contract management □ □ □ □ □
Preparation and approval of drawings
□ □ □ □ □
Quality assurance / control □ □ □ □ □
Waiting time for approval of test and inspection
□ □ □ □ □
Material related causes
Quality of material □ □ □ □ □
Shortage of material □ □ □ □ □
284
Labour and equipment category
causes
Labour supply □ □ □ □ □
Labour productivity □ □ □ □ □
Equipment availability and failure
□ □ □ □ □
Contract related causes
Change orders □ □ □ □ □
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
□ □ □ □ □
Contract relationships related causes
Major disputes and negotiations
□ □ □ □ □
Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking to project
□ □ □ □ □
Lack of communication between the parties
□ □ □ □ □
External causes
Climate conditions □ □ □ □ □
Regulatory changes □ □ □ □ □
Problem with neighbours □ □ □ □ □
Unforeseen site conditions □ □ □ □ □
285
APPENDIX H
CRTICAL DELAY FACTORS AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN
BRUNEI BUILDING CONSTRUCTION – GENERAL SURVEY
To the respondents:
This survey is part of academic research that aims to understand the
relationship between the success and delay factors in construction projects.
As a part of this research, the principal success and delay factors in Building
construction projects in Brunei and other countries all over the world studied.
With this survey, we would like to investigate the relationships between these
factors in order to improve the Building construction delivery process. In the
long term, this research could help the contract parties complete project on
time, within budget and with the highest quality. All the information you
provide will kept in strict confidentiality and it will be only used for academic
research. Please answer each question carefully. There is no right or wrong
answer. If you are unsure of an answer, please respond with your best
estimate. I value your participation and thank you for the commitment of time,
energy and effort. If you have any further questions, I can be reach at the
address below.
Sincerely,
Rohaniyati Salleh
PhD candidate
Faculty of Building and Environment
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Queensland, 4001,
Australia
Emails:[email protected]
286
Name:
E.Mail:
Which sector do you present?
Owner
Contractor
Engineer
Others
Number of years in construction fields?__________________
Please rank each of the following project types in terms of your level of
experience. (1 = most experience)
______ Offices building
______ Residential
______ Hospital
______ School
______ Other, please
specify____________________________________________
Have you ever worked as a site engineer?
Yes, please specify approximate number of projects_____________
No
Have you ever worked as a Project Manager?
Yes, please specify approximate number of
projects______________
No
Part 1. Information and general experience
287
Based on your overall experience in construction projects in Brunei, in
general please evaluate the quality of the following project success or delay
factors. Please add and evaluate any additional factors that you have
experienced to the list in the space provided.(5 = V good, 4 = Good, 3 = Fair,
2 = Poor and 1 = V.poor)
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project manager’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of the project scope and definition
Project manager capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedure
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Delay Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Lack of communication between parties
Slow decision making
Change Orders
Inadequate contractor’s planning
Owner’s finance and payment of completed work
Subcontractors
Part 2. Project Factors Evaluation
288
Inadequate contractor experience
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
289
Below are a series of questions. Each set of items follows a similar format. In
each set, you will be asked to indicate the extent to which one feature (delay
factor) of the project could have been affected by several other project
factors. There is a glossary provided at the end of this document to clarify
terms.
1. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could lack
of communication between parties during construction have been avoided
and/or prevented by the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that
could have prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces
provided below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount,
2 = A small amount and 1 = Not at all)
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of the project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
The control system for this project
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Part 3. Relationship between Success and Delay Factors
290
2. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could slow
decision making during construction have been avoided and/or prevented
by the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that could have
prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces provided
below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount, 2 = A
small amount and 1 = Not at all)
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
3. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could a
change orders during construction have been avoided and/or prevented by
the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that could have
prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces provided
below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount, 2 = A
small amount and 1 = Not at all)
291
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manage’sr capability and experience
Safety record
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
4. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend
contractor’s inadequate planning construction have been avoided and/or
prevented by the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that could
have prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces
provided below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount,
2 = A small amount and 1 = Not at all)
292
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
5. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could an
owner’s finance and payment for completed work during construction
have been avoided and/or prevented by the factors listed below…..(If there
are other factors that could have prevented cash problems, please list and
evaluate in the spaces provided below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3
= A moderate amount, 2 = A small amount and 1 = Not at all)
293
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
6. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could a
subcontractor’s problems during construction have been avoided and/or
prevented by the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that could
have prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces
provided below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount,
2 = A small amount and 1 = Not at all)
294
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
7. From your experience in the construction field, to what extend could an
inadequate contractor experience during construction have been avoided
and/or prevented by the factors listed below…..(If there are other factors that
could have prevented cash problems, please list and evaluate in the spaces
provided below). (5 = Completely, 4 = A good deal, 3 = A moderate amount,
2 = A small amount and 1 = Not at all)
295
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precaution and applied procedure
The control system for this project
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
296
From your experience, are there any other general causes of delay ( not
mentioned in the previous questions) that could have been avoided and
prevented by either the listed success factors or others you have
experienced?
1. Cause of delay: ____________________________________could have
avoided and/or prevented by:
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager’s goal commitment
Project team’s motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of the project scope and work definition
Project manager’s capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Part 4. Additional Causes of Delay
297
Part 4.Additional Cause of Delay
1 Cause of delay : ____________________________________could have
avoided and/or prevented by:
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager goal commitment
Project team motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of the project scope and definition
Project manager capability and experience
Safety precautions and applied procedures
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
298
Part 4. Additional Cause of Delay
Please reprint this page and attach it to the survey if you want to list more
additional causes of delay
1.Cause of delay : ____________________________________could have
avoided and/or prevented by:
Success Factors
5 4 3 2 1
Organization planning
Project manager goal commitment
Project manager motivation and goal orientation
Clarity of project scope and definition
Project manger capability and experience
Safety precautions and goal orientation
Use of control system
Other_____________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
Other_______________________
299
Organization planning: Development of a good project plan through
judicious and adequate use of schedule networking techniques, scope
and work definition, cash flow analysis, and risk identification.
Project manager goal commitment.: The project manager’s
commitment to meeting cost, schedule, safety and quality
commitments
Project team motivation and goal orientation: The motivation of all
the project personnel, particularly the supervisors, foremen, and field
construction staff, with special reference to their commitment towards
goals of the project.
Clarity of project scope and definition: The project scope and work
definition with special reference to completeness, clarity and
changeability
Project manager capability and experience: The project manager’s
experience and capabilities with particular reference to technical,
administrative, human relations, and communication skills
Safety precaution: All aspects of safety, with particular reference to
the implementation of safety programs, monitoring of safety, safety
regulations and requirements written into contract documents, and
safety-linked bonus schemes
Use of Control system: Procedures implemented to track project
progress relative to goals established in the planning phase.
Lack of communication between parties: Since there are many
parties involved in the project (client, consultant, contractor,
subcontractors), the communication between the parties is very crucial
for the success of the project. Proper communication channels
between the various parties must be established during the planning
stage. Any problem with communication can lead to severe
misunderstanding and therefore, delays in the execution of the project.
Glossary of terms
300
Owner’s slow decision making: The construction process was
slowed by the owner’s delay in approving construction material and
completed work.
Change orders: Change orders by owners during construction
Contractor’s inadequate planning: A contractor with inadequate
experience cannot plan and manage the projects properly and this can
lead to disastrous consequences
Owner’s finance and payment of completed work:. Work progress
can be delayed due to late payments from the clients because there is
inadequate cash flow to support construction expenses especially for
those contractors who are not financially sound
Subcontractors: Typically in huge projects, there are many
subcontractors working under main contractors. If the subcontractor is
capable, the project can be completed on time as planned. The project
can be delayed if the subcontractor underperforms because of
inadequate experience or capability.
Inadequate contractor’s experience: Contractor who has lack of
experience and knowledge of construction work
301
APPENDIX I
LETTER FOR ROUND ONE DELPHI
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN
BRUNEI BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: IMPROVE PROJECT
Dear participant,
Thank you for your interest in my research to develop a strategy for the
Building construction in Brunei. I value the unique contribution that you can
make to my study.
You have been selected as a member of a panel of experts to participate in a
two round questionnaire on the Brunei Building Construction. Your
participation will involve questionnaire. The research methodology I am
using is a qualitative one through which I am seeking comprehensive
description of your experience in the Building construction. In this way I hope
to answer my research question:
How could the Building construction in Brunei improve project delivery
performance?
Through your participation and professional experience, I hope to formulate a
strategy and a set of recommendations. You will be asked for opinions based
on experience gained within your professional life to best approach the
problem I am investigating. I am seeking solutions and strategies you think
will be appropriate to avoid delay in Building construction in Brunei
construction.
In the long term, this research could help the contract parties complete
project on time and with highest quality. All the information you provide will
kept in strict confidentiality and it will be only used for academic research. All
comments and responses are kept anonymous.
302
There are no risks beyond normal day to day living associated with your
participation of this project. I value your participation and thank you for the
commitment of time, energy and effort. If you have any further questions, I
can be reached at the address below.
Sincerely,
Rohaniyati Salleh
PhD candidate
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Queensland, 4001,
Australia.
Emails: [email protected]
Emails: [email protected]
DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE – ROUND ONE
PURPOSE
The purpose of this survey is to obtain the expert opinion on most important
success factors that will help to avoid delay factors found in Brunei building
construction.
INSTRUCTIONS
(Please review these instructions to understand the purpose of this survey
and to be able to answer the questions.)This survey is divided in two rounds:
First round – please review the list of strategies and policies and rank their
importance
Second round – the participants will be able to review the list of strategies
303
INSTRUCTION 1 – Please read the following definition
Critical Delay factors - Critical success factors - LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARTIES. Since there are many parties involved in the project (client, consultant, contractor, subcontractors), the communication between the parties is very crucial for the success of the project. There are a lot of misunderstanding and problem of communication between parties..
ORGANIZATION’S PLANNING EFFORT Development of a good project plan through the judicious and adequate use of schedule networking techniques, scope and work definition, cash flow analysis, and risk identification
OWNER’S SLOW DECISION MAKING. The construction process was slowed by the owner’s delay in approving construction material and completed work.
PROJECT MANAGER’S GOAL COMMITMENT The project manager’s commitment to meeting cost, schedule, safety, and quality commitments.
CHANGE ORDERS. Change orders by owners during construction
PROJECT TEAM’S MOTIVATION AND GOAL ORIENTATION The motivation of all the project personnel, particularly the supervisors, foremen, and field construction staff, with special reference to their commitment towards the goals of the project.
CONTRACTOR’S INADEQUATE PLANNING. A contractor often fail to come out with practical and workable ”work program” at the initial planning stage.
CLARITY OF PROJECT SCOPE AND WORK DEFINITION The project scope and work definition with special reference to completeness, clarity and changeability.
FINANCE AND PAYMENT OF COMPLETED WORK. The actual payments were made later than the contract-specified time
PROJECT MANAGER’S CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE The project manager’s experience and capabilities with particular reference to technical, administrative, human relations and communication skills
SUBCONTRACTORS. Typically in huge projects, there are many subcontractors working under main contractors. If the subcontractor is capable, the project can be completed on time as planned. The project can be delayed if the subcontractor underperforms because of inadequate experience or capability.
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND APPLIED PROCEDURES All aspects of safety, with particular reference to the implementation of safety programs, monitoring of safety, safety regulations and requirements written into contract documents, and safety-linked bonus schemes
INADEQUATE CONTRACTOR’S EXPERIENCE. Contractor who has lack of systematic site management and experience of construction work
USE OF CONTROL SYSTEM Procedures implemented to track project progress relative to goals established in the planning phase
304
INSTRUCTION 2 - Please give your details
Your position:
Years of experience:
Your contact address:
Your Email:
Qualification and achievement:
ROUND ONE – From your experience of Brunei construction development,
please rank the critical success factors below in what you consider to be the
level of need. 1 being the most needed and 7 being the least needed to avoid
the delay factors of building construction in Brunei
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS RANKINGI. ORGANIZATION’S PLANNING EFFORT
Development of a good project plan through the judicious and adequate use of schedule networking techniques, scope and work definition, cash flow analysis, and risk identification
II. PROJECT MANAGER’S GOAL COMMITMENT The project manager’s commitment to meeting cost, schedule, safety, and quality commitments.
III. PROJECT TEAM’S MOTIVATION AND GOAL ORIENTATION The motivation of all the project personnel, particularly the supervisors, foremen, and field construction staff, with special reference to their commitment towards the goals of the project.
IV. CLARITY OF PROJECT SCOPE AND WORK DEFINITION The project scope and work definition with special reference to completeness, clarity and changeability.
V. PROJECT MANAGER’S CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE The project manager’s experience and capabilities with particular reference to technical, administrative, human relations and communication skills
VI. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND APPLIED PROCEDURES All aspects of safety, with particular reference to the implementation of safety programs, monitoring of safety, safety regulations and requirements written into contract documents, and safety-linked bonus schemes
VII USE OF CONTROL SYSTEM Procedures implemented to track project progress relative to goals established in the planning phase
305
INSTRUCTION – PART 3 – Please indicate any additional success factors
not presented in the previous list that you consider important to avoid critical
delay factors in the Building construction in Brunei
THANK YOU
THANK YOU
306
DELPHI ROUND TWO LETTER
Dear participant,
Thank you for your response to the first questionnaire and for your
commitment to the process.
Your continued participation is critical. As we indicated in the beginning, this
process involves a series of two rounds. Enclosed is the second round
questionnaire based on what you and the other experts provided on the first
round. We now need you to rank order the items to confirm their importance
in view to other expert’s opinions.
Please return your questionnaire to the email below.
I value your participation and thank you for the commitment of time, energy
and effort. If you have any further questions, I can be reach at the address
below.
Sincerely,
Rohaniyati Salleh
PhD candidate
Faculty of Building and Environment,
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Queensland, 4001,
Australia.
Email: [email protected]
307
DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE – ROUND TWO
PURPOSE
The purpose of this survey is to obtain the expert opinion on most important
critical success factors that will avoid delay factors in Building construction in
Brunei.
The questionnaire question is to answer:
How could the Brunei Building construction improve deliver performance?
INSTRUCTION 1 – Please read the following definitions
Critical Delay factors - Critical success factors -
LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
PARTIES.
Since there are many parties involved in the
project (client, consultant, contractor,
subcontractors), the communication between
the parties is very crucial for the success of
the project. There are a lot of
misunderstanding and problem of
communication between parties..
ORGANIZATION’S PLANNING EFFORT
Development of a good project plan through
the judicious and adequate use of schedule
networking techniques, scope and work
definition, cash flow analysis, and risk
identification
OWNER’S SLOW DECISION MAKING.
The construction process was slowed by the
owner’s delay in approving construction
material and completed work.
PROJECT MANAGER’S GOAL
COMMITMENT
The project manager’s commitment to
meeting cost, schedule, safety, and quality
commitments.
CHANGE ORDERS.
Change orders by owners during
construction
PROJECT TEAM’S MOTIVATION AND
GOAL ORIENTATION
The motivation of all the project personnel,
particularly the supervisors, foremen, and
field construction staff, with special reference
to their commitment towards the goals of the
project.
CONTRACTOR’S INADEQUATE CLARITY OF PROJECT SCOPE AND
308
PLANNING.
A contractor often fail to come out with
practical and workable ”work program” at the
initial planning stage.
WORK DEFINITION
The project scope and work definition with
special reference to completeness, clarity
and changeability.
FINANCE AND PAYMENT OF
COMPLETED WORK.
The actual payments were made later than
the contract-specified time
PROJECT MANAGER’S CAPABILITIES
AND EXPERIENCE
The project manager’s experience and
capabilities with particular reference to
technical, administrative, human relations
and communication skills
SUBCONTRACTORS.
Typically in huge projects, there are many
subcontractors working under main
contractors. If the subcontractor is capable,
the project can be completed on time as
planned. The project can be delayed if the
subcontractor underperforms because of
inadequate experience or capability.
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND APPLIED
PROCEDURES
All aspects of safety, with particular
reference to the implementation of safety
programs, monitoring of safety, safety
regulations and requirements written into
contract documents, and safety-linked bonus
schemes
INADEQUATE CONTRACTOR’S
EXPERIENCE.
Contractor who has lack of systematic site
management and experience of construction
work
USE OF CONTROL SYSTEM
Procedures implemented to track project
progress relative to goals established in the
planning phase
INSTRUCTION 2 –Please give your details
Position:
Your Email:
ROUND TWO – From your experience of Brunei building construction
projects, please confirm your ranking of the policies below, base on other
expert opinion, from 1 being the most needed and 7 being the least needed
to deliver building construction project in Brunei.
309
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS EXPERT RANKINGS CONFIRM YOUR RANKING
A B C D E F G H I J ORGANIZATION’S PLANNING EFFORT Development of a good project plan through the judicious and adequate use of schedule networking techniques, scope and work definition, cash flow analysis, and risk identification
PROJECT MANAGER’S GOAL COMMITMENT The project manager’s commitment to meeting cost, schedule, safety, and quality commitments.
PROJECT TEAM’S MOTIVATION AND GOAL ORIENTATION The motivation of all the project personnel, particularly the supervisors, foremen, and field construction staff, with special reference to their commitment towards the goals of the project.
CLARITY OF PROJECT SCOPE AND WORK DEFINITION The project scope and work definition with special reference to completeness, clarity and changeability.
PROJECT MANAGER’S CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE The project manager’s experience and capabilities with particular reference to technical, administrative, human relations and communication skills
SAFETY PRECAUTINS AND APPLIED PROCEDURES All aspects of safety, with particular reference to the implementation of safety programs, monitoring of safety, safety regulations and requirements written into contract documents, and safety-linked bonus schemes
USE OF CONTROL SYSTEM Procedures implemented to track project progress relative to goals established in the planning phase